Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: HHH(DD) --- COMPUTE ACTUAL MAPPING FROM INPUT TO OUTPUT ---
 Ignoramus !!!
Date: Sat, 3 May 2025 08:32:51 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 88
Message-ID: <vv4daj$2ue7q$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vsnchj$23nrb$2@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>
 <vv4575$2oad7$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 08:32:52 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="256472d1c50807faeb3d5f58a62c8522";
	logging-data="3094778"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19w0UTZhgGyjBXXfSQmBCBR"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:1PHhvV+yNPCdgTfWPIGscNHBYKc=
In-Reply-To: <vv4575$2oad7$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: nl, en-GB

Op 03.mei.2025 om 06:14 schreef olcott:
> 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.
> 
And since your HHH does return, you should agree that it does not 
correctly simulate DD.