Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: My reviewers think that halt deciders must report on the behavior
 of their caller
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2025 15:06:33 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 144
Message-ID: <104el09$2dpog$1@dont-email.me>
References: <101nq32$99vd$1@dont-email.me> <101o913$db96$2@dont-email.me>
 <101o9rb$hd6o$1@dont-email.me> <101oa30$db96$4@dont-email.me>
 <101obb4$hd6o$4@dont-email.me> <101oc24$hlr6$2@dont-email.me>
 <101ocpc$hd6o$7@dont-email.me> <101od0p$i3m6$2@dont-email.me>
 <1049edr$10io1$2@dont-email.me>
 <a25b36c514731c7946fc2fb5e003c4dda451452e@i2pn2.org>
 <1049jhv$11mmt$2@dont-email.me>
 <89d2edbab76401270efa67a8fbc135d5c47fefab@i2pn2.org>
 <104bjmr$1hqln$16@dont-email.me>
 <3f64fdd81d67415b7b0e305463d950c0c71e2db7@i2pn2.org>
 <EKKdnXZfl9Qpf_T1nZ2dnZfqlJ-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <9dcab3b82e32f9eb8473f8bc5361ab2fbef8b8f8@i2pn2.org>
 <104cud2$1r72a$2@dont-email.me>
 <a346224cd5d8b4001580eb6e5ff8783e58c9b7f5@i2pn2.org>
 <104e46s$28pqb$2@dont-email.me>
 <960c2417e6f691b2b12703506c207990df5b39ab@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2025 22:06:33 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1d15e621694ba385b5c4999100d2724d";
	logging-data="2549520"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18kgSmSDK1xgenTWIIV9KlK"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:jGFtxyQJpwUuiFKTpTk8wlwCaDI=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250706-4, 7/6/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <960c2417e6f691b2b12703506c207990df5b39ab@i2pn2.org>

On 7/6/2025 12:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 7/6/25 11:19 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/6/2025 6:50 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 7/6/25 12:34 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 7/5/2025 10:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 7/5/25 10:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/5/2025 7:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/5/25 12:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/5/2025 8:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/4/25 6:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/4/2025 3:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/4/25 4:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/3/2025 10:02 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/3/2025 10:58 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/3/2025 9:46 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/3/2025 10:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/3/2025 9:12 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes there is no algorithm that does that 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Excellent!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let The Record Show
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That Peter Olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Has *EXPLICITLY* admitted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That no algorithm H exists that meets the above 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requirements, which is precisely the theorem that the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting problem proofs prove.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the exact same way that there is no set of all set
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that contain themselves. ZFC did not solve Russell's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Paradox as much as it showed that Russell's Paradox
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was anchored in an incoherent foundation, now called
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> naive set theory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which arose because the axioms of naive set theory created 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a contradiction.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise with halt deciders that are required to report
>>>>>>>>>>>> on the behavior of directly executed Turing machines.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And what is the CONTRADICTION?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The result is just some things are not computable.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The result is that there cannot possibly be
>>>>>>>>>> an *ACTUAL INPUT* that does the opposite of
>>>>>>>>>> whatever its partial halt decider decides
>>>>>>>>>> thus the HP proof fails before it begins.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sure there is.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In order to have an honest dialogue you must pay
>>>>>>>> 100% complete attention to every single word.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You can't just erase one of the words that I said
>>>>>>>> and then form a rebuttal on that basis.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Directly executed Turing machines have always been
>>>>>>>> outside of the domain of every Turing machine based
>>>>>>>> decider.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your refusal to providee a source is your admission that you are 
>>>>>>> just a liar.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Remember, The DEFINITION of a Halt Deicder is that it is to be a 
>>>>>>> decider that decides if the program represented by its input will 
>>>>>>> halt when run.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It has never been the program represented by its input
>>>>>> it has always been the behavior specified by its input.
>>>>>> This is the key mistake that no one noticed in 90 years.
>>>>>
>>>>> Really?
>>>>>
>>>>> In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of 
>>>>> determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer program 
>>>>> and an input, whether the program will finish running, or continue 
>>>>> to run forever.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sounds like the program and its representation.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> With pathological self-reference the directly
>>>> executed machine will not have the same
>>>> behavior as the correctly simulated machine
>>>> specification.
>>>
>>> Sure it does.
>>>
>>
>> void DDD()
>> {
>>    HHH(DDD);
>>    return;
>> }
>>
>> *EVERY BOT FIGURES THIS OUT ON ITS OWN*
> 
> No, it just isn't smart enough to detect that you lied in your premise.
> 
>> There is no way that DDD simulated by HHH (according
>> to the semantics of the C programming language)
>> can possibly reach its own "return" statement final
>> halt state.
> 
> And there is no way for HHH to correctly simulate its input and return 
> an answer
> 

You insistence that a non-terminating input be simulated
until non-existent completion is especially nuts because
you have been told about this dozens of times.

What the F is wrong with you?


-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer