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 21:43:50 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 105
Message-ID: <vqj2pn$ef0h$7@dont-email.me>
References: <vq5qqc$1j128$2@dont-email.me> <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$1@dont-email.me> <vqiug9$duqq$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqiur3$dje3$3@dont-email.me> <vqj2ab$dje3$8@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2025 04:43:51 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d75665534b29fc22cfbd837ef533f60b";
	logging-data="474129"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/1ug4LPw50D7UphJnvhMln"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:f2r1dhZHcWzNyojaldxan+66YjM=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <vqj2ab$dje3$8@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250308-6, 3/8/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6424

On 3/8/2025 9:35 PM, dbush wrote:
> On 3/8/2025 9:36 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 3/8/2025 9:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> The halting problem requires that the halting function is mapped:
>>
>> (<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
>>
>> So by this specification, (<X>,Y) specifies the behavior of X(Y) when 
>> executed directly.
>>
>> Any algorithm that does not compute this mapping is not a solution to 
>> the halting problem.
> 
> Your copy-paste answer to multiple threads indicates you have no real 
> rebuttal for what others have said.
> 

*This is all you get from me until this point is fully addressed*

*WHEN YOU UNDERSTAND THIS THEN YOU KNOW YOU WERE WRONG*
DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach
its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally
because DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive emulation.


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