Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly
 met
Date: Tue, 13 May 2025 11:28:00 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 77
Message-ID: <vvvodv$1so2t$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vvte01$14pca$29@dont-email.me> <vvte62$15ceh$18@dont-email.me>
 <vvtej1$181kg$1@dont-email.me> <vvtjj8$15ceh$19@dont-email.me>
 <vvtl1g$19cvp$1@dont-email.me> <vvtlmm$15ceh$20@dont-email.me>
 <vvto7c$1a1pf$1@dont-email.me> <vvtpqu$1agqu$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvtq8d$1a1pf$2@dont-email.me> <vvtqn1$1agqu$2@dont-email.me>
 <vvtsmf$1aube$1@dont-email.me> <vvtsq5$1agqu$3@dont-email.me>
 <vvttf7$1bfib$1@dont-email.me> <vvu008$1c062$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvu0mm$1c0vi$1@dont-email.me> <vvu0si$1c062$2@dont-email.me>
 <vvu1m8$1c86j$1@dont-email.me> <vvu2q2$1c062$3@dont-email.me>
 <vvu3ht$1c86j$3@dont-email.me> <vvu3lm$1c062$5@dont-email.me>
 <vvu42d$1cmbo$1@dont-email.me> <vvu46e$1c062$6@dont-email.me>
 <vvu5ch$1csst$1@dont-email.me> <vvu5j3$1c062$7@dont-email.me>
 <vvu5uk$1d27t$1@dont-email.me> <vvu88j$1c062$9@dont-email.me>
 <vvu95f$1deu5$1@dont-email.me> <vvuk9b$1k6qa$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvuku8$1j6s0$7@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 13 May 2025 17:28:00 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="525f3751cca56668838a1ae1f1e0ddfb";
	logging-data="1990749"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19DNWDoZ/hgOdbkJT1qVS3/"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:tdrUwLKUy95LHiTc4d7PJIQhdZw=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vvuku8$1j6s0$7@dont-email.me>

On 5/13/2025 1:22 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/13/2025 12:11 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 13/05/2025 03:01, olcott wrote:
>>> If the Goldbach conjecture is true (and there is
>>> no short-cut)
>>
>> We don't know that. Fermat's Last Theorem had a short cut, but it took 
>> 358 years to find it. At that rate, we won't find Goldbach's short cut 
>> (if it has one) for another 75 years.
>>
>>> this requires testing against every
>>> element of the set of natural numbers an infinite
>>> computation.
>>
>> Only if it's true. So if it's true, the testing program will never 
>> halt. But if it's false, the tester will eventually find the counter- 
>> example, print it, and stop.
>>
>> So a program that can tell whether another program will halt can tell 
>> us whether Goldbach's conjecture is true.
>>
>> It would be the short cut that you say doesn't exist.
>>
> 
> I am refuting the key halting problem

You mean the proof when you admitted *multiple time* that the theorem is 
proves is correct?


On 3/24/2025 10:07 PM, olcott wrote:
 > A halt decider cannot exist

On 4/28/2025 2:47 PM, olcott wrote:
 > On 4/28/2025 11:54 AM, dbush wrote:
 >> And the halting function below is not a computable function:
 >>
 >
 > It is NEVER a computable function
 >
 >> 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

On 3/14/2025 1:19 PM, olcott wrote:
 > When we define the HP as having H return a value
 > corresponding to the halting behavior of input D
 > and input D can actually does the opposite of whatever
 > value that H returns, then we have boxed ourselves
 > in to a problem having no solution.

On 6/21/2024 1:22 PM, olcott wrote:
 > the logical impossibility of specifying a halt decider H
 > that correctly reports the halt status of input D that is
 > defined to do the opposite of whatever value that H reports.
 > Of course this is impossible.

On 7/4/2023 12:57 AM, olcott wrote:
 > If you frame the problem in that a halt decider must divide up finite
 > strings pairs into those that halt when directly executed and those that
 > do not, then no single program can do this.

On 5/5/2025 5:39 PM, olcott wrote:
 > On 5/5/2025 4:31 PM, dbush wrote:
 >> Strawman.  The square root of a dead rabbit does not exist, but the
 >> question of whether any arbitrary algorithm X with input Y halts when
 >> executed directly has a correct answer in all cases.
 >>
 >
 > It has a correct answer that cannot ever be computed