Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DDD simulated by HHH cannot possibly halt (Halting Problem) ---
 mindless robots
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2025 21:09:00 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 99
Message-ID: <vthqns$5g2e$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vsnchj$23nrb$2@dont-email.me> <vso4a5$302lq$1@dont-email.me>
 <vsqhuu$1hl94$2@dont-email.me> <vsqknb$1ldpa$1@dont-email.me>
 <vsrmn8$2o2f2$1@dont-email.me> <vstku7$p4u7$1@dont-email.me>
 <vsu95l$1c5kt$1@dont-email.me> <vt01l0$39kn7$1@dont-email.me>
 <vt28vk$1fe7a$1@dont-email.me> <vt2k6t$1onvt$1@dont-email.me>
 <vt3ef4$2flgf$1@dont-email.me> <vt3fgd$2gu7u$1@dont-email.me>
 <vt6apu$12sjs$2@dont-email.me> <vt6g1f$180qf$1@dont-email.me>
 <vt6lmk$1djk6$1@dont-email.me> <vt7tj4$2iso2$1@dont-email.me>
 <vt9j0j$1snb$2@dont-email.me> <vtai1c$11kqr$1@dont-email.me>
 <vtajkf$10asg$2@dont-email.me> <vtbe3g$1vs00$1@dont-email.me>
 <852f89c9196e0261b8156050fea4572fe886933f@i2pn2.org>
 <vth52t$3in23$9@dont-email.me> <vth557$3a127$7@dont-email.me>
 <vth8lr$3n2du$2@dont-email.me> <vth8ql$3a127$8@dont-email.me>
 <vthhi5$3uil9$2@dont-email.me> <vthimk$3vmp3$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2025 04:09:09 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="011135d3306d8fc2bce093d7afd00226";
	logging-data="180302"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+W/cuMvNjXwbmYyusugOSD"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:nHQsjTAigG+T0fIZYaLvYSfni80=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250413-8, 4/13/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <vthimk$3vmp3$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5890

On 4/13/2025 6:51 PM, dbush wrote:
> On 4/13/2025 7:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/13/2025 4:03 PM, dbush wrote:
>>> On 4/13/2025 5:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/13/2025 3:00 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>> On 4/13/2025 3:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/13/2025 3:54 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>> Am Fri, 11 Apr 2025 10:56:32 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2025 3:24 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/04/2025 08:57, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No proof of this principle has been shown so its use is not 
>>>>>>>>>> valid.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No proof of Peano's axioms or Euclid's fifth postulate has been 
>>>>>>>>> shown.
>>>>>>>>> That doesn't mean we can't use them.
>>>>>>>>> Mr Olcott can have his principle if he likes, but only by EITHER
>>>>>>>>> proving it (which, as you say, he has not yet done) OR by 
>>>>>>>>> taking it as
>>>>>>>>> axiomatic, leaving the world of mainstream computer science 
>>>>>>>>> behind him,
>>>>>>>>> constructing his own computational 'geometry' so to speak, and
>>>>>>>>> abandoning any claim to having overturned the Halting Problem. 
>>>>>>>>> Navel
>>>>>>>>> contemplation beckons.
>>>>>>>>> Axioms are all very well, and he's free to invent as many as he 
>>>>>>>>> wishes,
>>>>>>>>> but nobody else is obliged to accept them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Simulating termination analyzer Principle*
>>>>>>>> It is always correct for any simulating termination analyzer to 
>>>>>>>> stop
>>>>>>>> simulating and reject any input that would otherwise prevent its 
>>>>>>>> own
>>>>>>>> termination.
>>>>>>> Sure. Why doesn’t the STA simulate itself rejecting its input?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because that is a STUPID idea and categorically impossible
>>>>>> because the outermost HHH sees its needs to stop simulating
>>>>>> before any inner HHH can possibly see this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In other words, you agree that Linz and others are correct that no 
>>>>> H exists that satisfies these requirements:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of 
>>>>> instructions) X described as <X> with input Y:
>>>>>
>>>>> A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes 
>>>>> the following mapping:
>>>>>
>>>>> (<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly
>>>>> (<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed 
>>>>> directly
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No stupid! Those freaking requirements are wrong 
>>>
>>> In other words, you have no interest in something that would make all 
>>> truth provable.
>>>
>>
>> It will remain forever impossible to prove that five minutes
>> ago ever existed. This is empirical truth mislabeled as synthetic truth.
>>
>> Semantic truth poorly labeled as analytic truth is the only
>> truth that is either provable else untrue. It is {provable}
>> on the basis of semantic connections to expressions that are
>> stipulated as true.
>>
> 
> So you do want something that would make all truth provable.  An H that 
> meets the following requirements would do that, therefore these 
> requirements are not "wrong":
> 

*Ignorance on your part about this*
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/43748/how-do-we-know-the--wasnt-created-5-minutes-ago#:~:text=Ask%20Question,non-falsifiable%20and%20all). 


> 
> Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of instructions) X 
> described as <X> with input Y:
> 
> A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes the 
> following mapping:
> 
> (<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly
> (<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed directly
> 
> 


-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer