Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: HHH(DD) --- COMPUTE ACTUAL MAPPING FROM INPUT TO OUTPUT
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2025 16:54:16 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 137
Message-ID: <vtmh1n$2a90$3@dont-email.me>
References: <vsnchj$23nrb$2@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$1@dont-email.me>
 <vtm9q8$aut7$1@dont-email.me> <vtmah8$2a90$2@dont-email.me>
 <vtmgen$gs48$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2025 22:54:16 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7a693fffeb8cb3d93ca8829962a38503";
	logging-data="76064"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/IZpP0Rf/GZksBFpRh6LjR"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:suD1EFmh/5s0v5mS1mnzHmtanrk=
In-Reply-To: <vtmgen$gs48$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6860

On 4/15/2025 4:44 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/15/2025 2:03 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 4/15/2025 2:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> 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 !!!
>>>
>>
>> That doesn't refute anything I said.
>>
> 
> You continue to stupidly insist that
> int sum(int x, int y) {return x + y; }
> 
> returns 7 for sum(3,2) because you incorrectly
> understand how these things fundamentally work.

Strawman.  (3,2) is not the same as (5,2), but (DD) is the same as (DD).

> 
> It is stupidly wrong to expect HHH(DD) report on
> the direct execution of DD when you are not telling
> it one damn thing about this direct execution.

False.  It is a prerequisite that (DD) is a *complete description* of 
the algorithm DD, i.e. the function DD, the function HHH, and everything 
function HHH calls down to the OS level.

The fact that UTM(DD) exactly replicates the behavior of direct 
execution shows that it's possible, it's just that algorithm HHH doesn't 
do it.