Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections
Warning: mysqli::query(): Couldn't fetch mysqli in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\index.php on line 66
Article <vvghd1$15i5e$18@dont-email.me>
Deutsch   English   Français   Italiano  
<vvghd1$15i5e$18@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: dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Halting Problem: What Constitutes Pathological Input
Date: Wed, 7 May 2025 16:56:02 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 123
Message-ID: <vvghd1$15i5e$18@dont-email.me>
References: <GE4SP.47558$VBab.42930@fx08.ams4> <vvb4ok$o4v0$9@dont-email.me>
 <vvb52g$15u5b$6@dont-email.me> <vvb5ca$o4v0$10@dont-email.me>
 <vvb5vp$15u5b$7@dont-email.me> <vvb675$o4v0$11@dont-email.me>
 <vvb9d7$1av94$3@dont-email.me> <vvbani$1b6l1$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvbb6s$1av94$4@dont-email.me> <vvbcb3$1b6l1$2@dont-email.me>
 <vvbe0j$1av94$8@dont-email.me> <vvbecc$1b6l1$6@dont-email.me>
 <vvbhk0$1ijna$1@dont-email.me> <vvbjjg$1kegb$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvbk93$1l4cf$1@dont-email.me> <vvbkft$1kegb$4@dont-email.me>
 <vvbl71$1ljaj$1@dont-email.me> <vvbma3$1kegb$5@dont-email.me>
 <vvbmp0$1ljaj$2@dont-email.me> <vvbqd5$1tr5o$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvbrha$1us1f$1@dont-email.me>
 <b5dffdb99fdbfe0cd74914de4d51abe0aa439e7d@i2pn2.org>
 <vvdj0r$3cbpq$9@dont-email.me>
 <f9513091c7337b52106e1febdc620e2f4cc2b868@i2pn2.org>
 <vveesi$89u0$3@dont-email.me>
 <ced6e219784929e1c4e91c06349ebe97dda0f43b@i2pn2.org>
 <vvg8gq$15e69$3@dont-email.me> <vvg8m7$15i5e$9@dont-email.me>
 <vvggt1$17q6h$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 07 May 2025 22:56:02 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3013d96e0ac4b7dd359f7afe652f4ce0";
	logging-data="1231022"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18WuqlAwDZqw8EHTl8g3sYU"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:vJUW9qzbRkPFI5QVegono+jVPA0=
In-Reply-To: <vvggt1$17q6h$4@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US

On 5/7/2025 4:47 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/7/2025 1:27 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 5/7/2025 2:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/7/2025 5:58 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/6/25 10:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/6/2025 5:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/6/25 2:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/6/2025 5:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/5/25 10:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/5/2025 8:59 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/5/2025 8:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/5/2025 7:49 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Which starts with the assumption that an algorithm exists 
>>>>>>>>>>>> that performs 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> DO COMPUTE THAT THE INPUT IS NON-HALTING
>>>>>>>>>>>>> IFF (if and only if) the mapping FROM INPUTS
>>>>>>>>>>>>> IS COMPUTED.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> i.e. it is found to map something other than the above 
>>>>>>>>>>>> function which is a contradiction.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The above function VIOLATES COMPUTER SCIENCE.
>>>>>>>>>>> You make no attempt to show how my claim
>>>>>>>>>>> THAT IT VIOLATES COMPUTER SCIENCE IS INCORRECT
>>>>>>>>>>> you simply take that same quote from a computer
>>>>>>>>>>> science textbook as the infallible word-of-God.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> All you are doing is showing that you don't understand proof 
>>>>>>>>>> by contradiction, 
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not at all. The COMPUTER SCIENCE of your requirements IS WRONG!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, YOU don't understand what Computer Science actually is 
>>>>>>>> talking about.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Every function computed by a model of computation
>>>>>>> must apply a specific sequence of steps that are
>>>>>>> specified by the model to the actual finite string
>>>>>>> input.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right, "Computed by a model of computation", that
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> HHH(DD) must emulate DD according to the rules
>>>>>>> of the x86 language.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right, which is doesn't do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Remember, your HHH stop processing at a CALL HHH instruction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>>>>      If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
>>>>>      *input D* until H correctly determines that its simulated D
>>>>>      *would never stop running unless aborted* then
>>>>>
>>>>> *input D* // the actual input
>>>>
>>>> Which calls the original H
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *would never stop running unless aborted*
>>>>> // A hypothetical HHH/DD pair where HHH and DD are
>>>>> // exactly the same except that this HHH does not abort.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, your hypothetical HHH (like  your HHH1) paired with the originl 
>>>> DD which uses the original HHH.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That is NOT what this means:
>>> *simulated D would never stop running unless aborted*
>>>
>>> All simulating halt deciders must
>>> PREDICT WHAT THE BEHAVIOR WOULD BE
>>
>> If the machine described by its input was executed directly, as per 
>> the requirements of a halt decider:
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
> 
> I have proved that everyone has been wrong about this
> for ninety years. 

You can't prove requirements or definitions wrong.

I want to know if any arbitrary algorithm X with input Y will halt when 
executed directly.  It would be *very* useful to me if I had an 
algorithm H that could tell me that in *all* possible cases.  If so, I 
could solve the Goldbach conjecture, among many other unsolved problems.

Does an algorithm H exist that can tell me that or not?