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: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: DDD simulated by HHH cannot possibly halt (Halting Problem) --- mindless robots Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2025 21:09:00 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 99 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 04:09:09 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="011135d3306d8fc2bce093d7afd00226"; logging-data="180302"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+W/cuMvNjXwbmYyusugOSD" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:nHQsjTAigG+T0fIZYaLvYSfni80= X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Content-Language: en-US X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250413-8, 4/13/2025), Outbound message In-Reply-To: Bytes: 5890 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). > > 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 > > -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer