Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Incorrect requirements --- Computing the mapping from the input to HHH(DD) Date: Sun, 11 May 2025 15:19:41 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 175 Message-ID: References: <09cea75db07408dc9203aca3fb74408ad3a095b4.camel@gmail.com> <853816e160c7b3fe75c71f0728e72989d9fb2e41.camel@gmail.com> <41e08841caf0d628beb5105bc78531a412eea440.camel@gmail.com> <07c4f2302645a7e58957b5e5bffed80397a6ddae.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 22:19:42 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ef7faca461217fa132b1f53eef89d0be"; logging-data="665342"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+GXs09KBwZcnBiYi/wz82t" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:Vk7HZfgbDnwZ1fJg3t6pBLnmNSo= X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250511-4, 5/11/2025), Outbound message Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <07c4f2302645a7e58957b5e5bffed80397a6ddae.camel@gmail.com> X-Antivirus-Status: Clean On 5/11/2025 1:38 PM, wij wrote: > On Sun, 2025-05-11 at 12:40 -0500, 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] >> >> All anyone need do to show that I am wrong >> is provide the steps where DDD emulated by >> HHH according to the rules of the x86 language >> reaches its own emulated "ret" instruction. >> >> Because no one can actually correctly show any ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========