Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: The input to HHH(DDD) specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations +++ Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2025 21:52:26 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: 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$6@dont-email.me> <102m3vn$quai$1@dont-email.me> <102mn5i$uef9$11@dont-email.me> <102p06t$1jvaf$1@dont-email.me> <102q145$1shmm$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 02:14:08 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="825359"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird In-Reply-To: <102q145$1shmm$1@dont-email.me> Content-Language: en-US X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 On 6/16/25 5:08 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/16/2025 6:46 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2025-06-15 15:00:02 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> On 6/15/2025 4:32 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2025-06-14 14:07:49 +0000, olcott said: >>>> >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> True. >>>> >>>>> (b) Within the theory of computation HHH is not allowed to report >>>>>      on the behavior of its caller. >>>> >>>> False. The theory of computation does not prohibit anything. >>> >>> *Sure it does* >>> A termination analyzer / partial halt decider is required >>> to report on the sequence of state transitions that its >>> input specifies. It is not allowed to report on anything else. >> >> The word "partial" means that it is not required to report. >> But if it does report it is required to report correctly whether >> the computation described by the input halts if fully executed. >> An incorret report is not allowed but a lack of report is. >> > > Its input could be described as performing some > arbitrary unspecified sequence of steps, thus > "described" is an insufficiently precise term. Nope, because that would not be a CORRECT represention of the program. Of course, since > > To correct that error I say that the termination > analyzer must report on the behavior specified > by the sequence of steps of its input. WHich since the input isn't a "sequence of steps" is just a category error. It is some precise representation/desciption/specification that gives the algorithm of the program it is talking about, allowing the recreation of the steps, WHEN COMPLETELY RUN/SIMULTED. Since HHH stops, the steps it sees are not the full "behavior of the input" > > void DDD() > { >   HHH(DDD); >   return; > } > > When one or more instructions of DDD are correctly > simulated by ANY simulating termination analyzer HHH > then this correctly simulated DDD never reaches its ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========