Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: dbush Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Incorrect requirements --- Computing the mapping from the input to HHH(DD) Date: Sun, 11 May 2025 13:44:12 -0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 211 Message-ID: References: <09cea75db07408dc9203aca3fb74408ad3a095b4.camel@gmail.com> <853816e160c7b3fe75c71f0728e72989d9fb2e41.camel@gmail.com> <41e08841caf0d628beb5105bc78531a412eea440.camel@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 11 May 2025 19:44:12 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="aad4969e8ca95f1c06ff9de97da90e9e"; logging-data="561910"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/obz9gWdj/GSAwpJ/SFL4a" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:cMLu9G/xQwazFsI0cSgti4PYOT8= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: On 5/11/2025 1:40 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/11/2025 12:21 PM, wij wrote: >> On Sun, 2025-05-11 at 12:00 -0500, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/11/2025 11:28 AM, wij wrote: >>>> On Sun, 2025-05-11 at 10:38 -0500, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 5/11/2025 9:34 AM, wij wrote: >>>>>> On Sat, 2025-05-10 at 21:19 -0500, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/10/2025 9:09 PM, wij wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sat, 2025-05-10 at 20:56 -0500, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 5/10/2025 8:44 PM, wij wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 2025-05-10 at 20:26 -0500, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/2025 8:17 PM, wij wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 2025-05-10 at 17:03 -0500, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/2025 4:44 PM, wij wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 2025-05-10 at 14:29 -0500, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/2025 2:02 PM, wij wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You don't know the counter example in the HP proof, your D >>>>>>>>>>>> is not the case what HP >>>>>>>>>>>> says. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Sure I do this is it! (as correctly encoded in C) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> typedef void (*ptr)(); >>>>>>>>>>> int HHH(ptr P); >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> int DD() >>>>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>>>         int Halt_Status = HHH(DD); >>>>>>>>>>>         if (Halt_Status) >>>>>>>>>>>           HERE: goto HERE; >>>>>>>>>>>         return Halt_Status; >>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> int main() >>>>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>>>         HHH(DD); >>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Try to convert it to TM language to know you know nothing. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I spent 22 years on this. I started with the Linz text >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ >>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ >>>>>>>>>        or >>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> (a) Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ⟩ >>>>>>>>> (b) Ĥ invokes embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ >>>>>>>>> (c) embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thus ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated by embedded_H >>>>>>>>> cannot possibly reach its simulated final halt state >>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> To refute the HP, you need to understand what it exactly means >>>>>>>>>> in TM. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I have known this for 22 years. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A working TM. Build it explicitly from transition function, then >>>>>>>> explain >>>>>>>> your derivation. You know nothing. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That would be like examining how an operating system >>>>>>> works entirely from its machine code. >>>>>> >>>>>> You are refuting a CS foundamental theorem (i.e. HP) officially. >>>>>> So, yes, and actually MORE need to be done (beyond your imagination). >>>>>> >>>>>> Knowing a car or smart phone,... is far different from making one. >>>>>> Knowing E=mc^2 is far from knowing relativity, making A-bomb >>>>>> (actually, making >>>>>> A-bomb don't need to know E=mc^2, people are often fooled by >>>>>> popular saying) >>>>>> Every chapter of Linz's book, C text textbook has exercises, you >>>>>> need to those >>>>>> exercises AT LEAST to comment CS (and computation theory is more >>>>>> advanced topic >>>>>> than TM). Saying so is because we know you can't do the exercise >>>>>> and boast lots >>>>>> about TM stuff (and pretty much anything else from just reading >>>>>> words), even >>>>>> about theorem. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ >>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ >>>>>      or >>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>> >>>>> (a) Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ⟩ >>>>> (b) Ĥ invokes embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ >>>>> (c) embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ >>>>> >>>>> All that I need to know is that I proved that >>>>> embedded_H correctly recognizes the repeating >>>>> pattern where its correctly simulated ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ >>>>> cannot possibly reach its own simulated final >>>>> halt state of ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩ >>>>> >>>>> https://www.liarparadox.org/Linz_Proof.pdf >>>>> >>>>>>> We only have to actually know one detail: >>>>>>> Every counter-example input encoded in any model >>>>>>> of computation always specifies recursive simulation >>>>>>> that never halts to its corresponding simulating >>>>>>> termination analyzer. >>>>>> >>>>>> More example here that you don't understand nearly all CS terms. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Mere empty rhetoric entirely bereft of any supporting >>>>> reasoning. The x86 language is comparable to a RASP >>>>> machine that is equivalent to a Turing machine. >>>> >>>> Question: >>>> 1. Do you understand that you can't do the exercises in Linz's book? >>> >>> Everything is 100% irrelevant besides the fact that >>> I have shown that ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated by >>> embedded_H cannot possibly reach its own simulated >>> final halt state ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩. Thus when embedded_H reports >>> on the behavior that its input specifies it can >>> correctly transition to Ĥ.qn. >>> >>>> 2. Do you understand your ability of C/assembly/TM is less than 1 >>>> year CS level? >>>> >>> >>> I construe C as high level assembly language thus >>> disregard any inessentials. No change since K & R >>> is of any use to me. I write C++ the same way. I >>> use it as C with classes. I also use std::vector a lot. >> >> Q3. If people know the capability of the author of POOH is less than 1 >> year CS >>      level. How persuasive and reliable of POOH do you think it would be? >> >> Q4: Why no one can reproduce the result of POOH for these 22? years? >> >> > > _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] ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========