Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<vv4575$2oad7$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: HHH(DD) --- COMPUTE ACTUAL MAPPING FROM INPUT TO OUTPUT --- Ignoramus !!! Date: Fri, 2 May 2025 23:14:27 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 95 Message-ID: <vv4575$2oad7$1@dont-email.me> References: <vsnchj$23nrb$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$5@dont-email.me> <vv21pc$p89b$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 03 May 2025 06:14:30 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b6b509a8dc6e245882d7d2c8db9f4d06"; logging-data="2894247"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18fPOugB24OxKPlkGa8lQ3P" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:uPMwgY7BS67X+ENIwPeMh85z6Kc= Content-Language: en-US X-Antivirus-Status: Clean In-Reply-To: <vv21pc$p89b$1@dont-email.me> X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250502-4, 5/2/2025), Outbound message On 5/2/2025 4:03 AM, Mikko wrote: > 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. HHH cannot possibly return to any DD correctly emulated by HHH. > 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. > -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer