Path: ...!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: Incorrect requirements --- Computing the mapping from the input to HHH(DD) Date: Sat, 10 May 2025 13:17:46 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 123 Message-ID: References: <87msbmeo3b.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <875xiaejzg.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <87jz6qczja.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <5b14da4260c0b7e3235ce05f752c092fade4d70e.camel@gmail.com> <11cc09876004107c47467b9481f614f45f450f2c.camel@gmail.com> <674a661e498281cca55b322cbd5905a1988a6171.camel@gmail.com> <088556c03067d8de7184bf88dd01cc6b8c99ba1b.camel@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 10 May 2025 20:17:47 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7be348abb5bc2ec0a70724586a3ca680"; logging-data="3858061"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18wWREmXzIMFwtkKolc7TX1" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:vlV243ypmVvGZtOJ49BDq8tfZHY= Content-Language: en-US X-Antivirus-Status: Clean In-Reply-To: X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250510-4, 5/10/2025), Outbound message Bytes: 7031 On 5/10/2025 1:09 PM, wij wrote: > On Sat, 2025-05-10 at 12:17 -0500, olcott wrote: >> On 5/10/2025 12:01 PM, wij wrote: >>> On Sat, 2025-05-10 at 11:47 -0500, olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/10/2025 11:29 AM, wij wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 2025-05-10 at 11:19 -0500, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 5/10/2025 11:06 AM, wij wrote: >>>>>>> On Sat, 2025-05-10 at 10:45 -0500, 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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You said 'merely' rejects it as non-halting. >>>>>>> So, POOH do not answer the input of any other function? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The input that has baffled computer scientists for 90 >>>>>> years is merely correctly determined to be non-halting >>>>>> when the behavior of this input is measured by HHH >>>>>> emulating this input according to the rules of the x86 >>>>>> language. >>>>>> >>>>>> The same thing applies to the Linz proof yet cannot >>>>>> be understood until after HHH(DDD) and HHH(DD) are >>>>>> fully understood. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> HHH(DDD) (whatever) at most says DDD is a pathological/midtaken input. >>>>> Others of what you say are your imagine and wishes, so far so true. >>>>> >>>> >>>> DDD emulated by HHH accor not the 'HHH' that makes the final decision > (otherwise, it will be an infinite recursive call which you agreed) > >>>> ding to the rules of >>>> the x86 language specifies recursive emulation >>>> that cannot possibly reach the final halt state >>>> of DDD. >>>> >>> >>> I have no problem with that. And, you said HHH merely rejects it as non-halting. >>> You had denied HHH can decide the halting property of any input, except DDD/DD/D.. >>> >> >> As long as HHH correctly determines the halt status >> of a single input that has no inputs then HHH is >> a correct termination analyzer for that input. > > Go it, that is a stronger statement that HHH ONLY decides DD. > I have no problem with that, but be noticed that the HHH inside DD > is not the 'HHH' that makes the final decision (otherwise, the 'HHH' > will be an infinite recursive which cannot make any decision, which > you had agreed) > HHH(DD) correctly determines that its input specifies recursive emulation when this input is emulated by HHH HHH according to the rules of the x86 language. *Thus exactly meets the following specification* If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. Professor Sipser is the best selling author of theory of computation textbooks. It is a pity that he could never take the five more minutes required to understand the notion of recursive emulation and thus see the significance of my work. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer