Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connectionsPath: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: dbush Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: DDD simulated by HHH cannot possibly halt (Halting Problem) --- mindless robots Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2025 22:12:45 -0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 105 Message-ID: References: <852f89c9196e0261b8156050fea4572fe886933f@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2025 04:12:45 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e9923b1bf4e091a8793967377f2f9306"; logging-data="4184867"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19mNgg3p4ZlSJ9YbH4YdZsX" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:8i1KK+AmGvSGYR4iOwp3+xKOpnY= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 5981 On 4/13/2025 10:09 PM, olcott wrote: > On 4/13/2025 6:51 PM, dbush wrote: >> On 4/13/2025 7:32 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 4/13/2025 4:03 PM, dbush wrote: >>>> On 4/13/2025 5:00 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 4/13/2025 3:00 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>> On 4/13/2025 3:59 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 4/13/2025 3:54 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>> Am Fri, 11 Apr 2025 10:56:32 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2025 3:24 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 11/04/2025 08:57, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No proof of this principle has been shown so its use is not >>>>>>>>>>> valid. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No proof of Peano's axioms or Euclid's fifth postulate has >>>>>>>>>> been shown. >>>>>>>>>> That doesn't mean we can't use them. >>>>>>>>>> Mr Olcott can have his principle if he likes, but only by EITHER >>>>>>>>>> proving it (which, as you say, he has not yet done) OR by >>>>>>>>>> taking it as >>>>>>>>>> axiomatic, leaving the world of mainstream computer science >>>>>>>>>> behind him, >>>>>>>>>> constructing his own computational 'geometry' so to speak, and >>>>>>>>>> abandoning any claim to having overturned the Halting Problem. >>>>>>>>>> Navel >>>>>>>>>> contemplation beckons. >>>>>>>>>> Axioms are all very well, and he's free to invent as many as >>>>>>>>>> he wishes, >>>>>>>>>> but nobody else is obliged to accept them. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *Simulating termination analyzer Principle* >>>>>>>>> It is always correct for any simulating termination analyzer to >>>>>>>>> stop >>>>>>>>> simulating and reject any input that would otherwise prevent >>>>>>>>> its own >>>>>>>>> termination. >>>>>>>> Sure. Why doesn’t the STA simulate itself rejecting its input? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Because that is a STUPID idea and categorically impossible >>>>>>> because the outermost HHH sees its needs to stop simulating >>>>>>> before any inner HHH can possibly see this. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> In other words, you agree that Linz and others are correct that no >>>>>> H exists that satisfies these requirements: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of >>>>>> instructions) X described as with input Y: >>>>>> >>>>>> A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes >>>>>> the following mapping: >>>>>> >>>>>> (,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly >>>>>> (,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed >>>>>> directly >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> No stupid! Those freaking requirements are wrong >>>> >>>> In other words, you have no interest in something that would make >>>> all truth provable. >>>> >>> >>> It will remain forever impossible to prove that five minutes >>> ago ever existed. This is empirical truth mislabeled as synthetic truth. >>> >>> Semantic truth poorly labeled as analytic truth is the only >>> truth that is either provable else untrue. It is {provable} >>> on the basis of semantic connections to expressions that are >>> stipulated as true. >>> >> >> So you do want something that would make all truth provable.  An H >> that meets the following requirements would do that, therefore these >> requirements are not "wrong": >> > > *Ignorance on your part about this* > https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/43748/how-do-we-know- > the--wasnt-created-5-minutes-ago#:~:text=Ask%20Question,non- > falsifiable%20and%20all). None-the-less an H that meets the requirements below would make all formal systems complete. That makes such an H *very* useful, and therefore the requirements are not "wrong". > >> >> Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of instructions) >> X described as with input Y: >> >> A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes the >> following mapping: >> >> (,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly >> (,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed >> directly >> >> > >