Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connectionsPath: ...!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: Sun, 11 May 2025 21:46:47 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 101 Message-ID: References: <87msbmeo3b.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <875xiaejzg.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <87jz6qczja.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <1276edeb9893085c59b02bbbd59fe2c64011736b@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 12 May 2025 04:46:48 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="15cac720ddbb61c7f6586fe023932af8"; logging-data="937298"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18gHfkjnlwb9ZeAMabd0VBc" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:HpCyXjsvVorJJbEb6G64K2q4MIo= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250511-4, 5/11/2025), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Bytes: 6290 On 5/11/2025 9:38 PM, dbush wrote: > On 5/11/2025 10:36 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/11/2025 9:28 PM, dbush wrote: >>> On 5/11/2025 10:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/11/2025 8:59 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>> On 5/11/2025 9:56 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 5/11/2025 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/11/25 8:48 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/11/2025 7:38 PM, Mike Terry wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 11/05/2025 18:11, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 11/05/2025 17:44, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Any yes/no question where both yes and no are the >>>>>>>>>>> wrong answer is an incorrect polar question. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Either DD stops or it doesn't (once it's been hacked around to >>>>>>>>>> get it to compile and after we've leeched out all the dodgy >>>>>>>>>> programming). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Done that.  It still stops. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If the computer cannot correctly decide whether or not DD halts, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The decider says it doesn't stop.. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> we have an undecidable computation, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No no, that doesn't make sense.  DD stops, and there are lots >>>>>>>>> of partial halt deciders that will decide that particular input >>>>>>>>> correctly.  PO's DD isn't "undecidable". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No single computation can be undecidable, considered on its >>>>>>>>> own! There are only two possibilities: it halts or it doesn't. >>>>>>>>> In either case there is a decider which decides that /one >>>>>>>>> specific input/ correctly. By extension, any finite number of >>>>>>>>> computations is decidable - we just have a giant switch >>>>>>>>> statement followed by returning halts/neverhalts as >>>>>>>>> appropriate.  If the input domain has just n inputs, there are >>>>>>>>> 2^n trivial deciders that together cater for every combination >>>>>>>>> of each input halting or never halting.  One of those deciders >>>>>>>>> is a correct decider for that (finite domain) problem. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The HP is asking for a TM (or equiv.) that correctly decides >>>>>>>>> EVERY (P,I) in its one finite algorithm.  That is what is >>>>>>>>> proven impossible.  The trick of having a big switch statement >>>>>>>>> no longer works because there are infinitely many possible inputs. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Decidability for just one single input is trivial and not >>>>>>>>> intersting. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> and therefore some computations are undecidable, so Turing's >>>>>>>>>> conclusion was right. Who knew? (Apart from practically >>>>>>>>>> everybody else, I mean.) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Mike. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> DDD emulated by HHH according to the rules of >>>>>>>> the computational language that DD is encoded >>>>>>>> within already proves that the HP "impossible" >>>>>>>> input specifies a non-halting sequence of >>>>>>>> configurations. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No it doesn't. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _DDD() >>>>>> [00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping >>>>>> [00002173] 8bec       mov  ebp,esp  ; housekeeping >>>>>> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD >>>>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD) >>>>>> [0000217f] 83c404     add  esp,+04 >>>>>> [00002182] 5d         pop  ebp >>>>>> [00002183] c3         ret >>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183] >>>>>> >>>>>> Show all the steps of DDD emulated by simulating >>>>>> termination analyzer HHH according to the rules >>>>>> of the x86 language >>>>> >>>>> Which it doesn't do as you have admitted on the record: >>>>> >>>> >>>> I am daring you to show what they should be. >>>> You know you can't because you know you are a liar. >>>> >>> >>> Category error.  Algorithm HHH does one thing and one thing only. >>> There is no "what it should be" because it *is* only one thing. >>> >> >> Show the exact sequence of machine address steps of DDD >> such that the DDD emulated by some HHH > > Changing the input is not allowed. There is no change of input you are a liar. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer