XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 8/2/2025 8:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 8/1/25 9:43 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 8/1/2025 7:29 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:   
   >>> On Fri, 01 Aug 2025 19:25:54 -0500, olcott wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On 8/1/2025 7:13 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:   
   >>>>> On Fri, 01 Aug 2025 19:07:44 -0500, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> On 8/1/2025 6:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 8/1/25 7:38 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On 8/1/2025 6:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> On 8/1/25 6:54 PM, olcott wrote:>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by embedded_H determines the behavior   
   that   
   >>>>> *THE   
   >>>>>>>>>> ACTUAL INPUT* to embedded_H specifies. Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is not and cannot   
   >>>>>>>>>> possibly be *AN ACTUAL INPUT* to embedded_H so its differing   
   >>>>>>>>>> behavior *DOES NOT COUNT*.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> NO!!!!   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> By that standard, any input could mean anything becuase the   
   >>>>>>>>> machine   
   >>>>>>>>> it is being given can do whatever it wants with it.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.∞   
   >>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* 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⟩   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Yes if you ignore that I said that Ĥ.embedded_H is based on a UTM   
   >>>>>>>> and ignore the above is the definition of machine Ĥ that could be   
   >>>>>>>> true.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> "Based on" does not mean *IS*   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> If you add code to the original UTM, then it no longer is a UTM, and   
   >>>>>>> its partial simulation is not determative.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>> *That is your one huge mistake*   
   >>>>>> As soon as the repeating pattern emerges then this repeating pattern   
   >>>>>> *is* determinative.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Recognising such a repeating pattern is no different to recognising   
   >>>>> repeated state in a finite state machine however such a recogniser, a   
   >>>>> simulating halt decider, is only a partial decider so of little   
   >>>>> interest as far as the Halting Problem is concerned.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> /Flibble   
   >>>>   
   >>>> My sole purpose is to show that the conventional HP proofs do not prove   
   >>>> undecidability. I have done that.   
   >>>   
   >>> No you haven't as what you are trying to show has nothing to do with the   
   >>> Halting Problem which is only concerned with total deciders not partial   
   >>> deciders.   
   >>>   
   >>> /Flibble   
   >>   
   >> I have showed that the conventional proofs of the halting problem   
   >> do not prove undecidability. It is reported that there are other   
   >> unconventional proofs. Ben mentioned one of them.   
   >   
   > No, you have not, you have claimed that, but you lie by using the wrong   
   > meaning of words.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> int Sipser_D()   
   >> {   
   >>    if (HHH(Sipser_D) == 1)   
   >>      return 0;   
   >>    return 1;   
   >> }   
   >>   
   >> The proof that recursively enumerable languages are not   
   >> recursive seems to fall into the same trap that I derived.   
   >>   
   >   
   > And what is your problem here? Nothing in the problem talks about   
   > recursion,   
   >   
      
   int Sipser_D()   
   {   
      if (HHH(Sipser_D) == 1)   
        return 0;   
      return 1;   
   }   
      
   _Sipser_D()   
   [00002162] 55             push ebp   
   [00002163] 8bec           mov ebp,esp   
   [00002165] 6862210000     push 00002162 // push Sipser_D   
   [0000216a] e863f4ffff     call 000015d2 // call HHH   
   [0000216f] 83c404         add esp,+04   
   [00002172] 83f801         cmp eax,+01   
   [00002175] 7504           jnz 0000217b   
   [00002177] 33c0           xor eax,eax   
   [00002179] eb05           jmp 00002180   
   [0000217b] b801000000     mov eax,00000001   
   [00002180] 5d             pop ebp   
   [00002181] c3             ret   
   Size in bytes:(0032) [00002181]   
      
   Sipser_D correctly emulated by HHH remains stuck in   
   recursive emulation until HHH aborts its emulation   
   and then kills the whole Sipser_D process before it   
   ever reaches the "if" statement. The HHH is correct   
   to return 0 rejecting Sipser_D() as non halting.   
      
   --   
   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)