XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic
From: polcott333@gmail.com
On 7/6/2025 5:16 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> olcott wrote:
>> On 7/5/2025 2:07 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>
>>> You lie. You don't have a proof. Many people in this group have pointed
>>> out lots of errors in various versions of your purported proof, which you
>>> just ignore. The section in Professor Linz's book you used to be so fond
>>> of citing will contain plenty of details, if only you would take the
>>> trouble to understand it (assuming you're capable of such understanding).
>
>> I have addressed ....
>
> Meaningless pompous word.
>
>> .... all of those details that you make sure to ignore so that you can
>> baselessly claim that I am wrong.
>
> I vaguely remember rolling my eyes at your hopeless lack of
> understanding. It was like watching a 7 year old trying to do calculus.
> The basic understanding was simply not there. Years later, it's still
> not there.
>
> And yes, you are wrong. The proofs of the halting theorem which involve
> constructing programs which purported halting deciders cannot decide
> correctly are correct.
>
Yet you cannot point to even one mistake because there are none.
>> There cannot possibly be *AN ACTUAL INPUT* that does the
>> opposite of whatever its decider decides. All of the examples
>> of this have never been *ACTUAL INPUTS*
>
> That's so sloppily worded, it could mean almost anything.
>
The standard halting problem proof cannot even be constructed.
int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}
int main()
{
HHH(DD); // DD cannot do the opposite of HHH
DD(); // The caller of HHH(DD) is not its input
}
>> No Turing machine can possibly take another directly executing
>> Turing machine as in input, thus removing these from the
>> domain of every halt decider.
>
> And that, too.
>
>> *Thus the requirement that HHH report on the behavior*
>> *of the directly executed DD has always been bogus*
>
> And that makes your hat trick.
>
>> Turing machine partial halt deciders compute the mapping
>> from their actual inputs to the actual behavior that these
>> inputs specify.
>
> And a fourth. There's some semblance of truth in there, but it's very
> confused.
>
It is not at all confused. I know exactly what it means.
> Sloppy wording is your technique to get people to go down to your level
> of discussion. That involves many posts trying just to tie you down to
> specific word meanings, and is very tiresome and unrewarding. I decline
> to get involved any further.
>
*Yet as I claimed you found no actual mistake*
Let me tell you the punchline so that you can
see why I said those things.
Because directly executed Turing machines cannot
possibly be inputs to Turing machine deciders this
makes them outside of the domain of these deciders.
When a partial halt decider is required to report
on the direct execution of a machine this requirement
is bogus.
This means that the behavior of DD() is none of the damn
business of HHH, thus does not contradict HHH(DD)==0.
*If you disagree this only proves that you do not understand*
HHH(DD) does correctly detect that DD simulated by HHH
according to the semantics pf the C programming language
cannot possibly reach its own "return"statement final
halt state.
*If you disagree this only proves that you do not understand*
Any mindless idiot can disagree. Showing an error and proving
that it is an actual mistake requires much more than this.
> [ .... ]
>
>> --
>> Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
>
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
