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 17:03:26 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 235
Message-ID: <vvoife$3ofmu$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vv97ft$3fg66$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>
 <vvo58a$3lnkd$1@dont-email.me>
 <dc76ef3215a83481dfddc40c466bb9ebc0e77341.camel@gmail.com>
 <vvo709$3m1oc$1@dont-email.me>
 <b503e969e23dd1b2a6201ba78c82c9ff7906eaae.camel@gmail.com>
 <vvo9e8$3m1oc$3@dont-email.me>
 <b9cec56c1d257e09fdf8043f02f123a4243de6e1.camel@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 11 May 2025 00:03:27 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ef7faca461217fa132b1f53eef89d0be";
	logging-data="3948254"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/Spa0YZNIqhPVRlbU8t3u3"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:dK6j0Q5N6w4sPHRjzLBNhxXNVF0=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <b9cec56c1d257e09fdf8043f02f123a4243de6e1.camel@gmail.com>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250510-4, 5/10/2025), Outbound message
Bytes: 11803

On 5/10/2025 4:44 PM, wij wrote:
> On Sat, 2025-05-10 at 14:29 -0500, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/10/2025 2:02 PM, wij wrote:
>>> On Sat, 2025-05-10 at 13:47 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/10/2025 1:37 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 2025-05-10 at 13:17 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>    From the about, so you are talking about 'the HHH' which does not compute the final
>>>>> decision.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> HHH does recognize the recursive emulation pattern
>>>> of DDD emulated by 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
>>>>>
>>>>> This H won't be the same HHH inside the DD, otherwise an infinite recursive call happens.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It must always be the outermost HHH that does this
>>>> because it has seen one entire recursive emulation
>>>> more than the next inner HHH.
>>>
>>> No problem. H is not HHH.
>>>
>>
>> The H is the template that Professor Sipser agreed to.
>> HHH is a specific implementation of H.
>>
>>> This is also a pitty no one here understand POOH can help AI industry and mankind, even so mini.
>>>
>>
>> It is the same halting problem after its mistake
>> has been corrected. So just like how ZFC corrected
>> the error in set theory so that Russell's Paradox
>> could be correctly decided, HHH corrects the error
>> in the halting problem proof so that the otherwise
>> impossible input is correctly decided.
> 
> I don't know what that part of set theory works.
> (My feeling is that they are garbage, for reasons,
> unless you are doing logic researches)
> 
>> The original set theory is now called naive set
>> theory after its mistake has been corrected. Thus
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========