Path: 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 ---
 Ignoramus !!!
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2025 15:44:00 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 117
Message-ID: <vutuhv$v5pn$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vsnchj$23nrb$2@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> <vtmh1n$2a90$3@dont-email.me>
 <vto4vh$23i07$1@dont-email.me> <vto7qu$267in$1@dont-email.me>
 <vtopqv$2meit$1@dont-email.me> <vung5v$2uf19$1@dont-email.me>
 <vuo87d$3jn5n$3@dont-email.me> <vuq7bm$1gtva$1@dont-email.me>
 <vutfj1$gmbi$5@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2025 21:43:59 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="36c3ab966607e6b458aa2826fcd1def6";
	logging-data="1021751"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19QGINXNDLSXVFN3VM+68y+"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:iyAGiSVwDqDOsfFXD1QcGQModm8=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vutfj1$gmbi$5@dont-email.me>

On 4/30/2025 11:28 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/29/2025 4:49 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-04-28 15:52:13 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 4/28/2025 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2025-04-16 17:36:31 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/16/2025 7:29 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>>> On 16/04/2025 12:40, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> sum(3,2) IS NOT THE SAME AS sum(5,2).
>>>>>>> IT IS EITHER STUPID OR DISHONEST FOR YOU TO TRY TO
>>>>>>> GET AWAY FOR CLAIMING THIS USING THE STRAW DECEPTION
>>>>>>> INTENTIONALLY INCORRECT PARAPHRASE OF MY WORDS.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Whether sum(3,2) is or is not the same as sum(5,2) is not the 
>>>>>> question. The question is whether a universal termination analyser 
>>>>>> can be constructed, and the answer is that it can't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This has been rigorously proved. If you want to overturn the proof 
>>>>>> you've got your work cut out to persuade anyone to listen, not 
>>>>>> least because anyone who tries to enter into a dialogue with you 
>>>>>> is met with contempt and scorn.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The proof stands.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *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*
>>>>>
>>>>> Not freaking allowed to look at any damn thing
>>>>> else besides the freaking input. Must compute whatever
>>>>> mapping ACTUALLY EXISTS FROM THIS INPUT.
>>>>
>>>> A halt decider is is not allowed to compute "whatever" mapping. It is
>>>> required to compute one specific mapping: to "no" if the computation
>>>> described by the input can be continesd forever without halting, to
>>>> "no" otherwise.
>>>
>>> It must do this by applying the finite string transformation
>>> rules specified by the x86 language to the input to HHH(DD).
>>
>> No, it needn't. A halt decider cannot do other than certain finite string
>> operations. No relation to x86 language is required.
>>
>>> This DOES NOT DERIVE THE BEHAVIOR OF THE DIRECTLY EXECUTED DD.
>>
>> Whether the execution is "direct" or otherwise is irrelevant. A 
>> computation
>> either halts or not. A halt decider must just tell whether the 
>> somputation
>> halts. It is true that no Turing machine can determine this about every
>> computation, i.e., no Turing machine is a halt decider.
>>
>>> It DOES DERIVE DD EMULATED BY HHH AND ALSO DERIVES THE RECURSIVE
>>> EMULATION OF HHH EMULATING ITSELF EMULATING DD.
>>
>> Which are not mentioned in the halting problem.
>>
> 
> When understand rather than simply ignore the HHH/DD
> example it can be seen that every conventional halting
> problem proof 

Which starts with the assumption that these requirements can be met:


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



> suffers the same fate. The contradictory
> part of the "impossible" input IS NEVER REACHABLE.


And because there is a contradiction, the assumption that the above 
requriements can be met is is proven false, as show by Linz and you have 
*explictly* agreed is correct.

> 
> int DD()
> {
>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>    if (Halt_Status)
>      HERE: goto HERE;
>    return Halt_Status;
> }
> 
> It took several C programmers only a few minutes to see this.
> The same thing applies to the Peter Linz proof.
> 
> Unlike the HHH/DD example the Linz proof lacks a fully
> specified termination analyzer written in a language that
> has a complete definition. 


Irrelavant, because *no* assumptions are made about how HHH is implemented.


> 
> Replacing the code of HHH with an unconditional simulator and 
> subsequently running HHH(DD) according to the finite string
> transformation rules of the x86 language DOES NOT HALT!
> 

Obviously, but that changes the input.

Changing the input is not allowed.