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: DD correctly emulated by HHH --- Totally ignoring invalid
 rebuttals ---PSR---
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2025 20:30:32 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 76
Message-ID: <vqiug9$duqq$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vq5qqc$1j128$2@dont-email.me> <vq9lvn$2ei4j$3@dont-email.me>
 <4453bc0c1141c540852ea2223a7fedefc93f564c@i2pn2.org>
 <vqadoh$2ivg7$2@dont-email.me> <vqae74$2ivcn$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqag6q$2jief$1@dont-email.me> <vqagb7$2ivcn$3@dont-email.me>
 <vqakhi$2jief$3@dont-email.me> <vqalvr$2ivcn$5@dont-email.me>
 <vqaq2s$2lgq7$2@dont-email.me> <vqasm4$2lue4$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqb43k$2mueq$1@dont-email.me> <vqb4ub$2lue4$3@dont-email.me>
 <vqb683$2mueq$2@dont-email.me> <vqbp05$2td95$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqcvlu$34c3r$3@dont-email.me> <vqecht$3epcf$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqf2lh$3j68u$5@dont-email.me> <vqf6mm$3j47v$4@dont-email.me>
 <vqg7ng$3qol2$3@dont-email.me> <vqh07g$26ac$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqhio1$5r7r$1@dont-email.me> <vqhm1s$6fo8$2@dont-email.me>
 <vqih45$bcso$1@dont-email.me> <vqii32$bcd0$3@dont-email.me>
 <vqijht$bcso$3@dont-email.me> <vqik16$bcd0$5@dont-email.me>
 <vqine6$cton$1@dont-email.me> <vqiovv$d4j1$2@dont-email.me>
 <vqiqk0$dc6s$2@dont-email.me> <vqirn6$dje3$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2025 03:30:33 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d63a95d414014c9c5b76bf21b1bac3a5";
	logging-data="457562"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+NXBSZmr3Ll+HjSfCi9ziK"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:618AKHjr+MvdzUf5dk2Pq9FaBsA=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <vqirn6$dje3$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250308-6, 3/8/2025), Outbound message
Bytes: 5223

On 3/8/2025 7:43 PM, dbush wrote:
> On 3/8/2025 8:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/8/2025 6:56 PM, dbush wrote:
>>> On 3/8/2025 7:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/8/2025 5:31 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>> On 3/8/2025 6:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/8/2025 4:58 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/8/2025 5:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2025 9:00 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2025 9:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Apparently you don't understand that inputs to a
>>>>>>>>>> simulating termination analyzer specifying infinite
>>>>>>>>>> recursion or recursive emulation cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>>> reach their own final state and terminate normally.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Apparently you don't understand that inputs to a termination 
>>>>>>>>> analyzer, simulating or otherwise, are specified by the 
>>>>>>>>> specification that is the halting function:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (<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
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And HHH(DD)==0 fails to meet the above specification
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *THIS IS A SEMANTIC TAUTOLOGY THUS IMPOSSIBLY FALSE*
>>>>>>>> Replacing the code of HHH with an unconditional simulator and 
>>>>>>>> subsequently running HHH(DD) cannot possibly reach
>>>>>>>> its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally
>>>>>>>> because DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive emulation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is ridiculously stupid to believe that HHH must
>>>>>>>> report on behavior other than the above behavior.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It must if it is to be classified as a halt decider or 
>>>>>>> termination analyzer as per the definition.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In other words you believe that HHH 
>>>>>
>>>>> Is required to map the halting function to meet the requirements to 
>>>>> be a halt decider / termination analyzer.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> HHH must map from the input finite string DD
>>>> to the behavior that this finite string specifies
>>>
>>> And what it specifies, to be considered a solution to the halting 
>>> problem, is given by the specification:
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>> In the same way that Sum(5,3) == 9
>> That is misconception is very widely held
>> does not make it not a misconception.
>>
> 
> In other words, you have no rebuttal to the fact that HHH doesn't meet 
> the requirements to be a solution to the halting problem.

If the halting problem actually requires that the "decider"
report on behavior other than what the input specifies
then its notion of a halting decider is not even a decider
in computer science.

-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer