Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Incorrect requirements --- Computing the mapping from the input
 to HHH(DD)
Date: Sat, 10 May 2025 13:17:46 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 123
Message-ID: <vvo58a$3lnkd$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vv97ft$3fg66$1@dont-email.me> <vvinvp$1vglb$1@dont-email.me>
 <vviv75$222r6$1@dont-email.me> <vvj1fp$22a62$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvj2j6$23gk7$1@dont-email.me> <as9TP.251456$lZjd.93653@fx05.ams4>
 <87msbmeo3b.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <vvjcge$27753$2@dont-email.me>
 <vvjeqf$28555$1@dont-email.me> <vvjffg$28g5i$1@dont-email.me>
 <875xiaejzg.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <vvjgt1$28g5i$5@dont-email.me>
 <87jz6qczja.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <vvjotc$28g5i$12@dont-email.me>
 <vvnh9u$3hd96$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org>
 <vvno4e$3in62$2@dont-email.me>
 <5b14da4260c0b7e3235ce05f752c092fade4d70e.camel@gmail.com>
 <vvnsae$3in62$9@dont-email.me>
 <11cc09876004107c47467b9481f614f45f450f2c.camel@gmail.com>
 <vvnu9k$3k258$2@dont-email.me>
 <674a661e498281cca55b322cbd5905a1988a6171.camel@gmail.com>
 <vvnvut$3kher$3@dont-email.me>
 <088556c03067d8de7184bf88dd01cc6b8c99ba1b.camel@gmail.com>
 <vvo1ni$3l14p$1@dont-email.me>
 <c09f468e8485c22150cedb12a9010b401f292054.camel@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 10 May 2025 20:17:47 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7be348abb5bc2ec0a70724586a3ca680";
	logging-data="3858061"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18wWREmXzIMFwtkKolc7TX1"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:vlV243ypmVvGZtOJ49BDq8tfZHY=
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <c09f468e8485c22150cedb12a9010b401f292054.camel@gmail.com>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250510-4, 5/10/2025), Outbound message
Bytes: 7031

On 5/10/2025 1:09 PM, wij wrote:
> On Sat, 2025-05-10 at 12:17 -0500, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/10/2025 12:01 PM, wij wrote:
>>> On Sat, 2025-05-10 at 11:47 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/10/2025 11:29 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 2025-05-10 at 11:19 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/10/2025 11:06 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 2025-05-10 at 10:45 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/10/2025 10:28 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 2025-05-10 at 09:33 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/2025 7:37 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Am 09.05.2025 um 04:22 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Look at their replies to this post.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Not a one of them will agree that
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>         HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>>>>>         return; // final halt state
>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> When 1 or more instructions of DDD are correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated by HHH then the correctly simulated DDD cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly reach its "return" instruction (final halt state).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> They have consistently disagreed with this
>>>>>>>>>>>> simple point for three years.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I guess that not even a professor of theoretical computer
>>>>>>>>>>> science would spend years working on so few lines of code.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I created a whole x86utm operating system.
>>>>>>>>>> It correctly determines that the halting problem's
>>>>>>>>>> otherwise "impossible" input is actually non halting.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> int DD()
>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>         int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>>>>>>>>         if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>>>>           HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>>         return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>      From I know HHH(DD) decides whether the input DD is "impossible" input or not.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> DD has the standard form of the "impossible" input.
>>>>>>>> HHH merely rejects it as non-halting.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You said 'merely' rejects it as non-halting.
>>>>>>> So, POOH do not answer the input of any other function?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The input that has baffled computer scientists for 90
>>>>>> years is merely correctly determined to be non-halting
>>>>>> when the behavior of this input is measured by HHH
>>>>>> emulating this input according to the rules of the x86
>>>>>> language.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The same thing applies to the Linz proof yet cannot
>>>>>> be understood until after HHH(DDD) and HHH(DD) are
>>>>>> fully understood.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> HHH(DDD) (whatever) at most says DDD is a pathological/midtaken input.
>>>>> Others of what you say are your imagine and wishes, so far so true.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> DDD emulated by HHH accor not the 'HHH' that makes the final decision
> (otherwise, it will be an infinite recursive call which you agreed)
> 
>>>> ding to the rules of
>>>> the x86 language specifies recursive emulation
>>>> that cannot possibly reach the final halt state
>>>> of DDD.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I have no problem with that. And, you said HHH merely rejects it as non-halting.
>>> You had denied HHH can decide the halting property of any input, except DDD/DD/D..
>>>
>>
>> As long as HHH correctly determines the halt status
>> of a single input that has no inputs then HHH is
>> a correct termination analyzer for that input.
> 
> Go it, that is a stronger statement that HHH ONLY decides DD.
> I have no problem with that, but be noticed that the HHH inside DD
> is not the 'HHH' that makes the final decision (otherwise, the 'HHH'
> will be an infinite recursive which cannot make any decision, which
> you had agreed)
> 

HHH(DD) correctly determines that its input specifies
recursive emulation when this input is emulated by HHH
HHH according to the rules of the x86 language.

*Thus exactly meets the following specification*
<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

     H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
     specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>

Professor Sipser is the best selling author of theory of
computation textbooks.

It is a pity that he could never take the five more minutes
required to understand the notion of recursive emulation and
thus see the significance of my work.

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer