Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DDD simulated by HHH cannot possibly halt (Halting Problem) ---
 mindless robots
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2025 09:29:40 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <aea1aef2c4f3a4cbffaeb02b0c007047ae45073a@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
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2025 09:29:40 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="289185"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4325
Lines: 54

Am Sun, 13 Apr 2025 16:00:43 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> 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.
> 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.
But why does it not return „I know this halts, but I can’t simulate it”?

-- 
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.