Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DDD simulated by HHH cannot possibly halt (Halting Problem) ---
 mindless robots
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2025 18:18:09 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 106
Message-ID: <vtk1j0$28cgl$2@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> <vthr0e$3vmp3$3@dont-email.me>
 <vtites$15e5s$4@dont-email.me> <vtiun2$16lg3$3@dont-email.me>
 <vtjvco$261t7$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2025 00:18:09 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7a693fffeb8cb3d93ca8829962a38503";
	logging-data="2372117"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/pyHGCLAdQaQr4l4f9/ZNM"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:/JU7gMubBYdJle8oSBfPKSPI/Ik=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vtjvco$261t7$1@dont-email.me>

On 4/14/2025 5:40 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/14/2025 7:22 AM, dbush wrote:
>> On 4/14/2025 8:01 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/13/2025 9:13 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 4/13/2025 10:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> 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:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In other words, you think something that would make all formal 
>>>> systems complete would be stupid.
>>>
>>> Formal systems are only incomplete[math] because 
>>
>> They contain unknowable truths. 
> 
> Undecidability 

Is not incompleteness, which is the current topic.  Formal systems are 
defined to be incomplete if they contain unknowable truths.  An H that 
satisfies the below requirements would make them knowable and therefore 
the system would be complete.

> 
>>  An H that meets these requirements would make those unknowable truths 
>> knowable:
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
> 
>