XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math
From: 643-408-1753@kylheku.com
On 2025-10-22, olcott wrote:
> On 10/22/2025 1:40 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2025-10-22, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/22/2025 12:07 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>> On 2025-10-22, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/22/2025 10:40 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-10-22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/20/2025 10:20 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>>>> And when I identify a flaw yo simply ignore
>>>>>>>>> whatever I say.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope; all the ways you say claim you've identified a flaw have been
>>>>>>>> dissected by multiple poeple to a much greater detail than they
deserve.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is disingenuous to say that you've simply had your details ignored.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Turing machines in general can only compute mappings
>>>>>>> from their inputs. The halting problem requires computing
>>>>>>> mappings that in some cases are not provided in the
>>>>>>> inputs therefore the halting problem is wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The halting problem positively does not propose anything
>>>>>> like that, which would be gapingly wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> It only seems that way because you are unable to
>>>>
>>>> No, it doesn't only seem that way. Thanks for playing.
>>>>
>>>>> provide the actual mapping that the actual input
>>>>> to HHH(DD) specifies when DD is simulated by HHH
>>>>> according to the semantics of the C language,
>>>>
>>>> DD is a "finite string input" which specifies a behavior that is
>>>> independent of what simulates it,
>>>
>>> That is stupidly incorrect.
>>> That DD calls HHH(DD) (its own simulator) IS PART OF
>>> THE BEHAVIOR THAT THE INPUT TO HHH(DD) SPECIFIES.
>>
>> In no way am I saying that DD is not built on HHH, and
>> does not have a behavior dependent on that of HHH.
>> Why would I ever say that?
>>
>> But that entire bundle is one fixed case DD, with a single behavior,
>> which is a property of DD, which is a finite string.
>
> That too is stupidly incorrect.
> It is the job of every simulating halt decider
> to predict what the behavior of it simulated
> input would be if it never aborted.
DD is a fixed input string that is etched in stone. That string
specifies a behavior which invokes a certain decider in self-reference
and then behaves opposite.
That decider is recorded inside that string, in every detail,
and so is also etched in stone.
That decider is aborting, and can be nothing else.
No decider which is analyzing DD has the power to alter any
aspect of that string.
It is a non-negotiable fact that DD calls an aborting decider
which returns 0 to it, subsequent to which DD halts; so
the correct answer for DD is 1.
The behavior of a correct simulation of DD that is not aborted is that
DD terminates, and thus so does the simulation.
Games played with the redefinition (actual or hypothetical) of a decider
that is specified somewhere outside of that string have no effect on
that string.
The real halting problem doesn't deal with C and function pointers,
where you can play games and have the test case use a pointer
to the same function that is also analyzing it, and be influenced
by its redefinition and other muddled confusions.
Even if HHH assumes it is calculating something in relation to
a hypothetically redefined HHH, that hypothesis does not extend
into the input DD; it must not.
You are talking about some angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin rubbish and not
the Halting Problem.
--
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
