Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Halting Problem: What Constitutes Pathological Input
Date: Tue, 6 May 2025 15:38:10 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 134
Message-ID: <vvdof1$3lapa$2@dont-email.me>
References: <GE4SP.47558$VBab.42930@fx08.ams4> <vvamqc$o6v5$4@dont-email.me>
 <vvan7q$o4v0$1@dont-email.me> <ts5SP.113145$_Npd.41800@fx01.ams4>
 <vvat0g$vtiu$1@dont-email.me> <vvatf3$o4v0$3@dont-email.me>
 <vvaut0$vtiu$4@dont-email.me> <vvav6o$o4v0$4@dont-email.me>
 <vvb329$15u5b$1@dont-email.me> <vvb37g$1451r$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvb43f$15u5b$4@dont-email.me> <vvb8fm$1a9jr$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvc4ok$26dgq$1@dont-email.me> <vvcubb$2sk4a$2@dont-email.me>
 <vvdlu8$3j2mn$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 06 May 2025 21:38:10 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="80f1b624b2b67f0b720d14d0d7fce339";
	logging-data="3844906"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+VIS8oRxGc0DWPaFedarx6"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:APLP/NMmS7ylN8bJ06JKpbKpUKk=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vvdlu8$3j2mn$1@dont-email.me>

On 5/6/2025 2:55 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/6/2025 7:12 AM, dbush wrote:
>> On 5/6/2025 12:55 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/5/2025 3:53 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>> On 05/05/2025 20:38, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/5/2025 2:23 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>>> On 05/05/2025 20:20, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> Is "halts" the correct answer for H to return?  NO
>>>>>>> Is "does not halt" the correct answer for H to return?  NO
>>>>>>> Both Boolean return values are the wrong answer
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or to put it another way, the answer is undecidable, QED.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> See? You got there in the end.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Is this sentence true or false: "What time is it?"
>>>>
>>>> 20:45GMT, give or take.
>>>>
>>>>> is also "undecidable" because it is not a proposition
>>>>> having a truth value.
>>>>
>>>> No, it's computable and therefore decidable. Your computer is 
>>>> perfectly capable of displaying its interpretation of the time.
>>>>
>>>>> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is untrue."
>>>>> is also "undecidable" because it is not a semantically sound
>>>>> proposition having a truth value.
>>>>
>>>> But we know that it halts at the full stop.
>>>>
>>>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this (yes/no) question?
>>>>
>>>> You have, I see, learned that not all yes/no questions are 
>>>> decidable. Well done! You're coming along nicely.
>>>>
>>>>> Both Yes and No are the wrong answer proving that
>>>>> the question is incorrect when the context of who
>>>>> is asked is understood to be a linguistically required
>>>>> aspect of the full meaning of the question.
>>>>
>>>> The question is grammatically and syntactically unremarkable. I see 
>>>> no grounds for claiming that it's 'incorrect'. It's just undecidable.
>>>>
>>>> You appear to be trying to overturn the Halting Problem by claiming 
>>>> that Turing somehow cheated. You're entitled to hold that opinion, 
>>>> but it's not one that will gain any traction with peer reviewers 
>>>> when you try to publish.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *EVERYONE IGNORES THIS*
>>> It is very simple the mapping from inputs to outputs
>>> must have a well defined sequence of steps.
>>>
>>
>> FALSE!!!
>>
>> There is no requirement that mappings have steps to compute them.
>>
> 
> The requirement is that 

Assuming that an algorithm exists that can compute the following mapping:


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


> OUTPUTS must correspond
> to INPUTS. This requires that outputs must be
> derived from INPUTS.

And when a contradiction is reached that proves the above assumption 
false, as Linz and others have proved, and you have *explicitly* 
admitted is correct.

> 
> When DD is correctly emulated by HHH 

A lie, as you have admitted to the contrary on the record:


On 5/5/2025 8:24 AM, dbush wrote:
 > On 5/4/2025 11:03 PM, dbush wrote:
 >> On 5/4/2025 10:05 PM, olcott wrote:
 >>> On 5/4/2025 7:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
 >>>> But HHH doesn't correct emulated DD by those rules, as those rules
 >>>> do not allow HHH to stop its emulation,
 >>>
 >>> Sure they do you freaking moron...
 >>
 >> Then show where in the Intel instruction manual that the execution of
 >> any instruction other than a HLT is allowed to stop instead of
 >> executing the next instruction.
 >>
 >> Failure to do so in your next reply, or within one hour of your next
 >> post on this newsgroup, will be taken as you official on-the-record
 >> admission that there is no such allowance and that HHH does NOT
 >> correctly simulate DD.
 >
 > Let the record show that Peter Olcott made the following post in this
 > newsgroup after the above message:
 >
 > On 5/4/2025 11:04 PM, olcott wrote:
 >  > D *WOULD NEVER STOP RUNNING UNLESS*
 >  > indicates that professor Sipser was agreeing
 >  > to hypotheticals AS *NOT CHANGING THE INPUT*
 >  >
 >  > You are taking
 >  > *WOULD NEVER STOP RUNNING UNLESS*
 >  > to mean *NEVER STOPS RUNNING* that is incorrect.
 >
 > And has made no attempt after over 9 hours to show where in the Intel
 > instruction manual that execution is allowed to stop after any
 > instruction other than HLT.
 >
 > Therefore, as per the above criteria:
 >
 > LET THE RECORD SHOW
 >
 > That Peter Olcott
 >
 > Has *officially* admitted
 >
 > That DD is NOT correctly simulated by HHH