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: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Mikko Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: The input to HHH(DDD) specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations +++ Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2025 12:32:08 +0300 Organization: - Lines: 134 Message-ID: <102rcmo$29vrj$1@dont-email.me> References: <1025i6j$afk6$1@dont-email.me> <1025j6l$4nm5$1@dont-email.me> <1025jn5$aqju$1@dont-email.me> <1025kkk$4nm5$2@dont-email.me> <1025l2e$aqju$3@dont-email.me> <1025l7l$4nm5$3@dont-email.me> <1025n51$b964$2@dont-email.me> <1026d6e$g0hl$2@dont-email.me> <1026rvc$j3rp$3@dont-email.me> <1027vah$r7bj$5@dont-email.me> <10295kr$17jfi$1@dont-email.me> <1029jnd$1ah2f$3@dont-email.me> <102be83$1s967$1@dont-email.me> <102c2bu$20jl4$4@dont-email.me> <102h0gt$3db1e$1@dont-email.me> <102jvnl$793t$6@dont-email.me> <102m14u$q6o0$1@dont-email.me> <102mjfd$uef9$3@dont-email.me> <102ovrk$1jsga$1@dont-email.me> <102ptk3$1rbi4$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2025 11:32:09 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="decef82e5e879cee5f938534695a2afb"; logging-data="2424691"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19lWwkBaermWtzkaLArNCt8" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:2dlm1qy3aSXztP0NLzKZA1PDtLI= On 2025-06-16 20:08:35 +0000, olcott said: > On 6/16/2025 6:40 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2025-06-15 13:57:01 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> On 6/15/2025 3:44 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>> Op 14.jun.2025 om 16:07 schreef olcott: >>>>> On 6/13/2025 6:02 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 2025-06-11 14:03:41 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 6/11/2025 3:20 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2025-06-10 15:41:33 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 6/10/2025 6:41 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2025-06-10 00:47:12 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2025 7:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/25 10:43 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2025 5:31 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 09.jun.2025 om 06:15 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/8/2025 10:42 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/8/2025 11:39 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/8/2025 10:32 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/8/2025 11:16 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/8/2025 10:08 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/8/2025 10:50 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> void DDD() >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD); >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    return; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The *input* to simulating termination analyzer HHH(DDD) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No it's not, as halt deciders / termination analyzers work with algorithms, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is stupidly counter-factual. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That you think that shows that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My understanding is deeper than yours. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No decider ever takes any algorithm as its input. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But they take a description/specification of an algorithm, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There you go. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is what is meant in this context. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It turns out that this detail makes a big difference. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And because your HHH does not work with the description/ specification >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of an algorithm, by your own admission, you're not working on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting problem. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH(DDD) takes a finite string of x86 instructions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that specify that HHH simulates itself simulating DDD. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> And HHH fails to see the specification of the x86 instructions. It >>>>>>>>>>>>>> aborts before it can see how the program ends. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> This is merely a lack of sufficient technical competence >>>>>>>>>>>>> on your part. It is a verified fact that unless the outer >>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH aborts its simulation of DDD that DDD simulated by HHH >>>>>>>>>>>>> the directly executed DDD() and the directly executed HHH() >>>>>>>>>>>>> would never stop running. That you cannot directly see this >>>>>>>>>>>>> is merely your own lack of sufficient technical competence. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> And it is a verified fact that you just ignore that if HHH does in fact >>>>>>>>>>>> abort its simulation of DDD and return 0, then the behavior of the >>>>>>>>>>>> input, PER THE ACTUAL DEFINITIONS, is to Halt, and thus HHH is just >>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> void DDD() >>>>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD); >>>>>>>>>>>    return; >>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> How the f-ck does DDD correctly simulated by HHH >>>>>>>>>>> reach its own "return" statement final halt state? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If HHH is not a decider the question is not interesting. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I switched to the term: "termination analyzer" because halt deciders >>>>>>>>> have the impossible task of being all knowing. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The termination problem is in certain sense harder than the halting >>>>>>>> problem. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Not at all >>>>>> >>>>>> That's in another sense in which nothing is harder than impossible. >>>>>> >>>>>>> void DDD() >>>>>>> { >>>>>>>    HHH(DDD); >>>>>>>    return; >>>>>>> } >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If HHH only determines non-halting correctly for the >>>>>>> above input and gets the wrong answer on everything >>>>>>> else then HHH *is* a correct termination analyzer. >>>>>> >>>>>> It is not a correct termination analyzer if if gives the wrong answer. >>>>> >>>>> *Key verified facts such that disagreement is inherently incorrect* >>>>> >>>>> (a) HHH(DDD) does not correctly report on the behavior of its caller. >>>> >>>> Irrelevant. HHH should decide about the program specified in the input, >>>> whether or not it is the same code used by the caller. >>> >>> In other words you do not understand that a partial >>> halt decider is not allowed to report on the behavior >>> of its caller and only allowed to report on the behavior >>> specified by the sequence of state transitions specified >>> by its input. >> >> It is not allowed to report incorrectly. There are no prohibitions >> against correct reporting. > > And you do not understand which is which. Of course I do. That is clearly stated in the definition of "partial halt decider". -- Mikko