Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DD correctly emulated by HHH --- Totally ignoring invalid
 rebuttals ---PSR---
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2025 22:49:22 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 115
Message-ID: <vqj342$dje3$10@dont-email.me>
References: <vq5qqc$1j128$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$8@dont-email.me> <vqj2pn$ef0h$7@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2025 04:49:22 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a7cd4af0ac1547313f65cbaef3f65f1f";
	logging-data="445891"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18GUbdxBOOY+JXIk3nef8sn"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:IOLCRMrJbaokVZvJfxM4VX/0bWA=
In-Reply-To: <vqj2pn$ef0h$7@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6805

On 3/8/2025 10:43 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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*
> 
>   <copy-paste response>
> 


In other words, you have no rebuttal.  A copy-paste response is worse 
than no rebuttal at all.

 >> Unless you respond to this thread, I'll take your lack of response 
to >> mean that you accept that the above specification is required to 
be a >> solution to the halting problem.

And as such, by the above, your less-than-a-rebuttal means you accept 
that a solution to the halting problem is required to perform 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