Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Fred. Zwarts" Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: HHH(DD) --- COMPUTE ACTUAL MAPPING FROM INPUT TO OUTPUT --- Ignoramus !!! Date: Sat, 3 May 2025 08:32:51 +0200 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 88 Message-ID: References: <852f89c9196e0261b8156050fea4572fe886933f@i2pn2.org> <63af93cb608258cc3e12b9bab3a2efa0b7ee7eee@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 03 May 2025 08:32:52 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="256472d1c50807faeb3d5f58a62c8522"; logging-data="3094778"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19w0UTZhgGyjBXXfSQmBCBR" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:1PHhvV+yNPCdgTfWPIGscNHBYKc= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: nl, en-GB Op 03.mei.2025 om 06:14 schreef olcott: > On 5/2/2025 4:03 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2025-04-30 15:28:33 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> On 4/29/2025 4:49 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2025-04-28 15:52:13 +0000, olcott said: >>>> >>>>> On 4/28/2025 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 2025-04-16 17:36:31 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 4/16/2025 7:29 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>>>>>> On 16/04/2025 12:40, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> sum(3,2) IS NOT THE SAME AS sum(5,2). >>>>>>>>> IT IS EITHER STUPID OR DISHONEST FOR YOU TO TRY TO >>>>>>>>> GET AWAY FOR CLAIMING THIS USING THE STRAW DECEPTION >>>>>>>>> INTENTIONALLY INCORRECT PARAPHRASE OF MY WORDS. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Whether sum(3,2) is or is not the same as sum(5,2) is not the >>>>>>>> question. The question is whether a universal termination >>>>>>>> analyser can be constructed, and the answer is that it can't. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This has been rigorously proved. If you want to overturn the >>>>>>>> proof you've got your work cut out to persuade anyone to listen, >>>>>>>> not least because anyone who tries to enter into a dialogue with >>>>>>>> you is met with contempt and scorn. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The proof stands. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *corresponding output to the input* >>>>>>> *corresponding output to the input* >>>>>>> *corresponding output to the input* >>>>>>> *corresponding output to the input* >>>>>>> *corresponding output to the input* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Not freaking allowed to look at any damn thing >>>>>>> else besides the freaking input. Must compute whatever >>>>>>> mapping ACTUALLY EXISTS FROM THIS INPUT. >>>>>> >>>>>> A halt decider is is not allowed to compute "whatever" mapping. It is >>>>>> required to compute one specific mapping: to "no" if the computation >>>>>> described by the input can be continesd forever without halting, to >>>>>> "no" otherwise. >>>>> >>>>> It must do this by applying the finite string transformation >>>>> rules specified by the x86 language to the input to HHH(DD). >>>> >>>> No, it needn't. A halt decider cannot do other than certain finite >>>> string >>>> operations. No relation to x86 language is required. >>>> >>>>> This DOES NOT DERIVE THE BEHAVIOR OF THE DIRECTLY EXECUTED DD. >>>> >>>> Whether the execution is "direct" or otherwise is irrelevant. A >>>> computation >>>> either halts or not. A halt decider must just tell whether the >>>> somputation >>>> halts. It is true that no Turing machine can determine this about every >>>> computation, i.e., no Turing machine is a halt decider. >>>> >>>>> It DOES DERIVE DD EMULATED BY HHH AND ALSO DERIVES THE RECURSIVE >>>>> EMULATION OF HHH EMULATING ITSELF EMULATING DD. >>>> >>>> Which are not mentioned in the halting problem. >>> >>> When understand rather than simply ignore the HHH/DD >>> example it can be seen that every conventional halting >>> problem proof suffers the same fate. >> >> That you (or some other people) don't understand the proof is not fatal. >> >>> The contradictory part of the "impossible" input IS NEVER REACHABLE. >>> >>> int DD() >>> { >>>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD); >>>    if (Halt_Status) >>>      HERE: goto HERE; >>>    return Halt_Status; >>> } >> >> It is unless HHH never returns. > > HHH cannot possibly return to any DD correctly > emulated by HHH. > And since your HHH does return, you should agree that it does not correctly simulate DD.