Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: HHH(DD) --- COMPUTE ACTUAL MAPPING FROM INPUT TO OUTPUT --- Ignoramus !!!
Date: Fri, 2 May 2025 12:03:40 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 84
Message-ID: <vv21pc$p89b$1@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: Fri, 02 May 2025 11:03:41 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ec5b6a2bfbc0083f13e3f26100a138ba";
	logging-data="827691"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19ePE9bcMxuL5ISwui7E0Lm"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:BsBteM0ku1pVOK+aQPFASyZKVhU=

On 2025-04-30 15:28:33 +0000, olcott said:

> 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 suffers the same fate.

That you (or some other people) don't understand the proof is not fatal.

> The contradictory part of the "impossible" input IS NEVER REACHABLE.
> 
> int DD()
> {
>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>    if (Halt_Status)
>      HERE: goto HERE;
>    return Halt_Status;
> }

It is unless HHH never returns. It HHH never returns it is not a halt
decider and therefore is not a counter-example to the proof. If it
returns it returns the wrong answer and therefore is not a counter-
example to the proof.

-- 
Mikko