Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<vtit6a$15e5s$3@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!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: Mon, 14 Apr 2025 06:56:58 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 60 Message-ID: <vtit6a$15e5s$3@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> <a8ab995b650b894cbfb635478f7406c4eee4d187@i2pn2.org> <vthqtc$5g2e$2@dont-email.me> <63af93cb608258cc3e12b9bab3a2efa0b7ee7eee@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2025 13:56:59 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="787671f9b598edb648348d7d0055cec0"; logging-data="1226940"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18BQlZWqikIBcub1r4AEkh4" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:28OyMRGe+EeKzYVqxmhE+gRHQKA= Content-Language: en-US X-Antivirus-Status: Clean In-Reply-To: <63af93cb608258cc3e12b9bab3a2efa0b7ee7eee@i2pn2.org> X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250414-0, 4/13/2025), Outbound message Bytes: 5027 On 4/14/2025 4:25 AM, joes wrote: > Am Sun, 13 Apr 2025 21:11:56 -0500 schrieb olcott: >> On 4/13/2025 6:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 4/13/25 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: > >>>>>>>>> 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 and* >>>> anchored in the ignorance of rejecting the notion of a simulating >>>> termination analyzer OUT-OF-HAND WITHOUT REVIEW. >>> No, those "freeking requirement" *ARE* the requirements >> AND AS STUPID AS {REQUIRING} A GEOMETRIC SQUARE CIRCLE IN THE SAME >> TWO-DIMENSIONAL PLANE. > Nothing is stupid about wanting a halt decider. It’s just not obvious > that it’s impossible. > When people insist that a termination analyzer reports on behavior other than the behavior that its finite string input specifies this is isomorphic to requiring a perfectly geometric square circle in the same two dimensional plane, simply logically impossible, thus an incorrect requirement. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer