Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Incorrect requirements --- Computing the mapping from the input
 to HHH(DD)
Date: Sat, 10 May 2025 15:25:44 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <532abaffcde385985379f60d82eb472ad3ef19b1@i2pn2.org>
References: <vv97ft$3fg66$1@dont-email.me> <vvgr22$1ag3a$2@dont-email.me>
 <vvgt36$1auqp$2@dont-email.me> <vvgtbe$1b0li$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvguot$1auqp$3@dont-email.me> <vvh0t2$1b939$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvhap5$1hp80$1@dont-email.me> <vvhf20$1ihs9$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvhfnd$1hvei$3@dont-email.me> <vvil99$1ugd5$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvinvp$1vglb$1@dont-email.me> <vviv75$222r6$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvj1fp$22a62$1@dont-email.me> <vvj2j6$23gk7$1@dont-email.me>
 <as9TP.251456$lZjd.93653@fx05.ams4> <87msbmeo3b.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <vvjcge$27753$2@dont-email.me> <vvjeqf$28555$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvjffg$28g5i$1@dont-email.me> <875xiaejzg.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <vvjgt1$28g5i$5@dont-email.me> <87jz6qczja.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <vvjotc$28g5i$12@dont-email.me>
 <vvnh9u$3hd96$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org>
 <vvno4e$3in62$2@dont-email.me>
 <5b14da4260c0b7e3235ce05f752c092fade4d70e.camel@gmail.com>
 <vvnsae$3in62$9@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 10 May 2025 19:26:32 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3982151"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vvnsae$3in62$9@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3347
Lines: 50

On 5/10/25 11:45 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/10/2025 10:28 AM, wij wrote:
>> On Sat, 2025-05-10 at 09:33 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/10/2025 7:37 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:
>>>> Am 09.05.2025 um 04:22 schrieb olcott:
>>>>
>>>>> Look at their replies to this post.
>>>>> Not a one of them will agree that
>>>>>
>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>> {
>>>>>     HHH(DDD);
>>>>>     return; // final halt state
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> When 1 or more instructions of DDD are correctly
>>>>> simulated by HHH then the correctly simulated DDD cannot
>>>>> possibly reach its "return" instruction (final halt state).
>>>>>
>>>>> They have consistently disagreed with this
>>>>> simple point for three years.
>>>>
>>>> I guess that not even a professor of theoretical computer
>>>> science would spend years working on so few lines of code.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I created a whole x86utm operating system.
>>> It correctly determines that the halting problem's
>>> otherwise "impossible" input is actually non halting.
>>>
>>> int DD()
>>> {
>>>     int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>     if (Halt_Status)
>>>       HERE: goto HERE;
>>>     return Halt_Status;
>>> }
>>>
>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm
>>>
>>
>> Nope.
>>  From I know HHH(DD) decides whether the input DD is "impossible" 
>> input or not.
>>
> 
> DD has the standard form of the "impossible" input.
> HHH merely rejects it as non-halting.
> 

And is wrong.