Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DDD simulated by HHH cannot possibly halt (Halting Problem) ---
 mindless robots
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2025 19:11:01 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <a8ab995b650b894cbfb635478f7406c4eee4d187@i2pn2.org>
References: <vsnchj$23nrb$2@dont-email.me> <vso4a5$302lq$1@dont-email.me>
 <vsqhuu$1hl94$2@dont-email.me> <vsqknb$1ldpa$1@dont-email.me>
 <vsrmn8$2o2f2$1@dont-email.me> <vstku7$p4u7$1@dont-email.me>
 <vsu95l$1c5kt$1@dont-email.me> <vt01l0$39kn7$1@dont-email.me>
 <vt28vk$1fe7a$1@dont-email.me> <vt2k6t$1onvt$1@dont-email.me>
 <vt3ef4$2flgf$1@dont-email.me> <vt3fgd$2gu7u$1@dont-email.me>
 <vt6apu$12sjs$2@dont-email.me> <vt6g1f$180qf$1@dont-email.me>
 <vt6lmk$1djk6$1@dont-email.me> <vt7tj4$2iso2$1@dont-email.me>
 <vt9j0j$1snb$2@dont-email.me> <vtai1c$11kqr$1@dont-email.me>
 <vtajkf$10asg$2@dont-email.me> <vtbe3g$1vs00$1@dont-email.me>
 <852f89c9196e0261b8156050fea4572fe886933f@i2pn2.org>
 <vth52t$3in23$9@dont-email.me> <vth557$3a127$7@dont-email.me>
 <vth8lr$3n2du$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2025 00:01:57 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="241454"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vth8lr$3n2du$2@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4581
Lines: 71

On 4/13/25 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 <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
>>
> 
> No stupid! Those freaking requirements are wrong and
> anchored in the ignorance  of rejecting the notion
> of a simulating termination analyzer OUT-OF-HAND WITHOUT REVIEW.

No, those "freeking requirement" *ARE* the requirements and show that 
you are just living in a world of make-believe.

> 
> As anyone can see HHH MUST REJECT ITS INPUT OR GET STUPIDLY
> STUCK IN NON-TERMINATION. If people were not mindless robots
> they would have immediately acknowledged this years ago.
> 

Which just proves that it must be incorrect.

Sorry, you are just proving that you "logic" things lying is correct 
reasoning.

This is why it seems you are a 1st class reservation for that lake front 
property at the bottom of the lake of fire.