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: Wed, 23 Apr 2025 12:32:37 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 126
Message-ID: <vub87l$3inf8$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vsnchj$23nrb$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>
 <aea1aef2c4f3a4cbffaeb02b0c007047ae45073a@i2pn2.org>
 <vtk3c4$2agjr$1@dont-email.me>
 <811ea75a45b53b3a04dbe97035989aadb7875fac@i2pn2.org>
 <vu8qdk$13jl5$9@dont-email.me> <vuaa5u$2lbp9$1@dont-email.me>
 <vub2dl$3clpn$5@dont-email.me> <vub7na$3ih01$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2025 19:32:38 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5791df4ad8dacc236dd89a5c1d753bc4";
	logging-data="3759592"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/vCLlI0uVL/KxZjlAmzpRC"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:scI8D/O231CAxN6U5ZLoqpOZZ+Q=
In-Reply-To: <vub7na$3ih01$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250423-4, 4/23/2025), Outbound message
Bytes: 7831

On 4/23/2025 12:23 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 23.apr.2025 om 17:53 schreef olcott:
>> On 4/23/2025 3:59 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 22.apr.2025 om 21:24 schreef olcott:
>>>> On 4/22/2025 7:42 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>> Am Mon, 14 Apr 2025 17:48:36 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>> On 4/14/2025 4:29 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>> Am Sun, 13 Apr 2025 16:00:43 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>> As anyone can see HHH MUST REJECT ITS INPUT OR GET STUPIDLY 
>>>>>>>> STUCK IN
>>>>>>>> NON-TERMINATION. If people were not mindless robots they would have
>>>>>>>> immediately acknowledged this years ago.
>>>>>>> But why does it not return „I know this halts, but I can’t simulate
>>>>>>> it”?
>>>>>> Because it is not a liar and tells the truth for every input in its
>>>>>> domain.
>>>>> Aha. Then why does it not simulate it and say that it halts?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have proven that the directly executed DD and DD
>>>> emulated by HHH according to the semantics of the
>>>> x86 language have a different set of state changes
>>>> many hundreds of times for several years.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You did not prove it, you dreamed about it for many years, but you 
>>> failed to show the first state change were the simulation differs 
>>> from the simulation. You only showed that HHH failed to complete the 
>>> simulation.
>>
>> _DD()
>> [00002133] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
>> [00002134] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
>> [00002136] 51         push ecx      ; make space for local
>> [00002137] 6833210000 push 00002133 ; push DD
>> [0000213c] e882f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DD)
>> [00002141] 83c404     add esp,+04
>> [00002144] 8945fc     mov [ebp-04],eax
>> [00002147] 837dfc00   cmp dword [ebp-04],+00
>> [0000214b] 7402       jz 0000214f
>> [0000214d] ebfe       jmp 0000214d
>> [0000214f] 8b45fc     mov eax,[ebp-04]
>> [00002152] 8be5       mov esp,ebp
>> [00002154] 5d         pop ebp
>> [00002155] c3         ret
>> Size in bytes:(0035) [00002155]
>>
>> By merely knowing that HHH emulates DD until it
>> sees itself about to emulate DD a third time
>> (mathematical induction proof that DD is stuck in
>> recursive emulation) we can know that
> 
> We know that the simulating HHH fails to see that the recursion is 
> finite 

 From the point of view of the HHH that is simulating DD
the recursion will never stop unless this HHH stops it.

On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
 > I don't think that is the shell game.  PO really /has/ an H
 > (it's trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines
 > that P(P) *would* never stop running *unless* aborted.
....
 > But H determines (correctly) that D would not halt if it
 > were not halted.  That much is a truism.

That you don't know software engineering well enough to
see this is less than no rebuttal at all.

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