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