Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: HP counter-example INPUT cannot possibly exist Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2025 11:39:40 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 231 Message-ID: <10342se$4ms9$1@dont-email.me> References: <1027uhs$r7bj$2@dont-email.me> <6f1855be769b3afc319d871c0d451f381803ba5e@i2pn2.org> <1029hvm$1ah2f$1@dont-email.me> <102bhn6$1t2a1$1@dont-email.me> <102c462$20jl4$10@dont-email.me> <102e2p4$2iugr$1@dont-email.me> <102er47$2ohps$3@dont-email.me> <102gv1s$3cscf$1@dont-email.me> <102hgcp$3gqbm$3@dont-email.me> <102m36e$qohc$1@dont-email.me> <102mm8v$uef9$8@dont-email.me> <102ok6o$1gto6$1@dont-email.me> <102uj28$369b2$1@dont-email.me> <1030gop$3p2jt$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2025 18:39:42 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f938b348c4e7170a4ede38a4382f6060"; logging-data="154505"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/ospb1Mi7N2iMYAKAv632r" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:CYlAzaXIEu21x2H2xWSnYUZ8qGY= X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <1030gop$3p2jt$1@dont-email.me> X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250620-0, 6/19/2025), Outbound message On 6/19/2025 3:12 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2025-06-18 14:39:02 +0000, olcott said: > >> On 6/16/2025 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 2025-06-15 14:44:47 +0000, olcott said: >>> >>>> On 6/15/2025 4:19 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 2025-06-13 15:33:45 +0000, olcott said: >>>>> >>>>>> On 6/13/2025 5:37 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> On 2025-06-12 15:18:30 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 6/12/2025 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2025-06-11 14:34:41 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 6/11/2025 4:19 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-06-10 15:11:50 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/10/2025 6:15 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/25 8:34 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2025 7:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/25 3:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "big fat ignorant liar" -- Damon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are no words. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you show me wrong? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or are you complaining about me telling him the truth? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What about this paper that I wrote? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Severe anthropogenic climate change proven entirely with >>>>>>>>>>>>>> verifiable facts >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>> publication/336568434_Severe_anthropogenic_climate_change_proven_entirely_with_verifiable_facts >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Which just shows you don't know the meaning of the word >>>>>>>>>>>>> "prove". >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> What specifically do you believe is not proven? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The article makes no attempt to prove anything. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That is a dishonest or stupid thing to say. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On what page and line there is the end of the conclusion of >>>>>>>>> a proof? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Maybe you don't know what a verified fact is? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Irrepevant. >>>>>> >>>>>> That you don't know what a verified fact is, cannot >>>>>> possibly be more relevant. >>>>> >>>>> Indeed, but what is more relevant is that you don't know what a >>>>> fact is. >>>>> >>>>>> It means that when I conclusively >>>>>> prove that you are wrong you will still think that you are >>>>>> correct because you lack the basis for dividing correct >>>>>> from incorrect. >>>>> >>>>> Irrelevant as long as you don't prove anything. >>>> >>>> When I fully proven my claim and your lack of sufficient >>>> technical knowledge fails to understand this proof that >>>> is not any actual rebuttal at all. >>> >>> Be specific. The relevant techincal knoledge is the knowloedge >>> of what a proof is and how one looks like. That knowledge >>> I have, so I know that you have not presented any proof. >>> I have not failed to understand what does not exist. >> >> A proof is any sequence of statements > > So far correct. > >> that are necessarily true and thus impossibly false. > > But this is not. A proof starts with assumptions that may be true of > false. Each statement that is not a definition, axiom, postulate, > hypthesis or other assumption follows from some previous statements > by an inference rule. The conclusion of a proof is the last statement > of the sequence. > Some proofs begin with definitions instead of assumptions. >>>>>>> Your question "What specifically do you believe is not >>>>>>> proven?" was about proofs, not about facts. >>>>>> >>>>>> Facts are the ultimate ground-of-being maximum foundational >>>>>> basis of all proofs. >>>>> >>>>> No, they are not, just of proofs about the real world. >>>> >>>> So how many decades how you carefully studied the >>>> philosophical foundation of analytical truth? >>> >>> It doesn't take decades of study to learn that an analyitcal >>> truth says nothing about the real world. That is one of the >>> very first things teached and learned. >> >> That dogs are animals is an analytical truth >> that does say something about the real world. > > No, it is not. Vernacular terms "dog" and "animal" have aquired teir > traditiona meanigs separately and at different times. The statement > "Dogs are aninals" is known to be true from comparison of various > things to the traditional meanings of those words. > >> Like almost everyone you don't know much about >> analytical truth. > > As an analytincal truth says nothing about the real world the > usefulness of any knowledge about it is limited. > >>>>>>> As you respond to my question without answering it it is >>>>>>> obvious that you don't see any proofs in your article. >>>>>> >>>>>> It is a fact that there is no actual input D to any >>>>>> termination analyzer H that does the opposite of >>>>>> whatever value that H derives. The key element that >>>>>> all conventional HP proofs depend on cannot possibly exist. >>>>> >>>>> Nonsense is not a fact. >>>> >>>> After studying these things for 22 years I found >>>> that every conventional proof of the halting problem >>>> never provides an actual input that would do the >>>> opposite of whatever value that its partial halt >>>> decider (PHD) returns. >>> >>> The core part of those proofs is a constructive specification >>> of that test case. >> >> Yet no one ever noticed that the counter-example input >> cannot even be constructed thus the proof itself never >> actually existed. > > Depending on the style of the proof one can ither prove that > the counter example exists or that if a halting decider exists > then the caunter example exists, too, and otherwise none is > needed. > No this is counter-factual. It has never been possible for *AN ACTUAL INPUT* to do the opposite of whatever value that it decider decides. *For 90 years no one ever bothered to notice this* int main() { DD(); // IS NOT AN ACTUAL INPUT TO THE } // HHH(DD) THAT THIS DD() CALLS. In the C programming language it has always been impossible for the caller of a function to be an argument to this called function. The finite string of x86 machine language that is passed as an argument to HHH *is not exactly one and the same thing as the directly executed DD* ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========