Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DDD simulated by HHH cannot possibly halt (Halting Problem) ---
 mindless robots
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2025 19:49:05 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 121
Message-ID: <vub96h$3ih01$6@dont-email.me>
References: <vsnchj$23nrb$2@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>
 <vub87l$3inf8$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 19:49:06 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="022ad8323e5507ecb94825ae7c530911";
	logging-data="3752961"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX185bFIgUafK01ECRgLrwI6e"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:i9y224ZxEieznZgGeCokRUknzwk=
In-Reply-To: <vub87l$3inf8$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: nl, en-GB

Op 23.apr.2025 om 19:32 schreef olcott:
> 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.
> 
Only, because it aborts before it can see that. Such a programming error 
is not a proof.
Very clever to hide the fact that you cannot show the first state change 
that is different between the direct execution and the simulation.