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: HHH(DD) --- COMPUTE ACTUAL MAPPING FROM INPUT TO OUTPUT
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2025 13:50:48 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 110
Message-ID: <vtm9q8$aut7$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vsnchj$23nrb$2@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>
 <vtit6a$15e5s$3@dont-email.me> <vtivmo$19aqd$1@dont-email.me>
 <vtkc4l$2h48g$3@dont-email.me> <vtkdnm$2iqu5$1@dont-email.me>
 <vtkkge$2si58$2@dont-email.me> <vtl56j$3aajg$1@dont-email.me>
 <vtlu0a$3vgp0$1@dont-email.me> <vtm04f$2a90$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 20:50:49 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="96c0267261df157580e82e04d57d32cf";
	logging-data="359335"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19Ea6YpCAzWamnLx8jJqCra"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:+93cVclHgDldGyZfyKmjdzJynVM=
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250415-10, 4/15/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <vtm04f$2a90$1@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Bytes: 5827

On 4/15/2025 11:05 AM, dbush wrote:
> On 4/15/2025 11:29 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/15/2025 3:25 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2025-04-15 03:41:02 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 4/14/2025 8:45 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>> On 15/04/2025 02:18, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/14/2025 7:39 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>>>> On 14/04/2025 12:56, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A termination analyzer that works is simply logically impossible, 
>>>>>>> thus an incorrect requirement.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> THAT IS A STUPID THING TO SAY THAT COMPLETELY IGNORES WHAT
>>>>>> COMPUTABLE FUNCTIONS ARE AND HOW THEY WORK.
>>>>>
>>>>> You said precisely the same thing in reply to dbush. I have 
>>>>> addressed your remark there, so I see no value in repeating my 
>>>>> reply here.
>>>>>
>>>>>> HHH CORRECTLY REPORTS ON THE PATHOLOGICAL SELF-REFERENCE THAT
>>>>>> ITS INPUT SPECIFIES. THE DIRECT EXECUTION HAS NO SUCH PSR.
>>>>>
>>>>> You say so,
>>>>
>>>> Ignoring verified facts does not make them go away.
>>>
>>> Ignoring verified proofs does not meke them go away.
>>> But you keep ignoring them anyway.
>>>
>>
>> int DD()
>> {
>>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>    return Halt_Status;
>> }
>>
>> It is a verified fact that the input to HHH(DD) specifies
>>
> 
> An algorithm which halts when executed directly.
> 
>>
>> It is flat out stupid to think that HHH should report on
>> behavior other than this specified behavior. Only people
>> that have zero depth of understanding would suggest this.
> 
> No, it is flat-out stupid to think that something that claims to be a 
> halt decider / termination analyzer should report on anything other than 
> the mapping which is the halting function:
> 
> 
> 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
> 
>>
>> a function is computable if there exists an
>> algorithm that can do the job of the function,
>> i.e. given an input of the function domain it
>> can return the corresponding output.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function
> 
> And the mathematical halting function is not a computable function, as 
> proven by Linz and others
> 
>>
>> *corresponding output to the input*
>> *corresponding output to the input*
>> *corresponding output to the input*
>> *corresponding output to the input*
>>
>> Not freaking allowed to look at any damn thing
>> else besides the freaking input. Must compute whatever
>> mapping ACTUALLY EXISTS FROM THIS INPUT.
>>
> 
> So the algorithm HHH that you've implemented computes *some* computable 
> function, but it does not compute the halting function as it is not 
> computable.
> 
> 

*corresponding output to the input*
*corresponding output to the input*
*corresponding output to the input*
*corresponding output to the input*
*corresponding output to the input*
Knucklehead !!!

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