XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: dbush.mobile@gmail.com   
      
   On 10/23/2025 2:40 PM, olcott wrote:   
   > On 10/23/2025 1:31 PM, dbush wrote:   
   >> On 10/23/2025 2:17 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>> On 10/23/2025 1:09 PM, dbush wrote:   
   >>>> On 10/23/2025 2:06 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>> On 10/23/2025 1:00 PM, dbush wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 10/23/2025 1:58 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 10/23/2025 12:03 PM, dbush wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On 10/23/2025 12:49 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> On 10/23/2025 10:48 AM, dbush wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>> On 10/23/2025 11:46 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>> On 10/23/2025 4:15 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-10-22 12:35:14 +0000, olcott said:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/22/2025 4:07 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-10-21 15:04:58 +0000, olcott said:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/21/2025 3:45 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-10-20 16:17:07 +0000, olcott said:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/20/2025 3:42 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-10-19 16:21:42 +0000, olcott said:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/19/2025 4:24 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-10-18 13:16:50 +0000, olcott said:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/18/2025 7:16 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please think this all the way through without   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> making any guesses   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulating Termination Analyzer HHH correctly   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates its input until:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Detects a non-terminating behavior pattern:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abort simulation and return 0.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Simulated input reaches its simulated "return"   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement: return 1.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (c) If HHH must abort its simulation to prevent   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own non- termination   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      then HHH is correct to abort this simulation   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and return 0.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> typedef int (*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);   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What value should HHH(DD) correctly return?   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When the halting problem requires a halt decider to   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> report   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on anything besides the behavior that its input   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifies this is just like requiring a silk purse   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be made   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from a sow's ear.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The way halting problem is usally presented the   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to the   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem is a Truing machine   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The input to the problem is never ever a Turing   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine it is always a finite string generally   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assumed to be a machine description.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The input to the problem as usually presented is a pair   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Turing machine and an input to it.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wrong again. It is always a finite string Turing Machine   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> description and never an actual Turing machine.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> As the problem is presented in Wikipedia the input to the   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> proble   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a program and an input to it. Both can be regareded as   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> strings.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> The behavior of the caller of HHH(DD) is not encoded in its   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> input.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH has no way to tell who its caller is.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> This is what makes the halting problem a category error.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> No, it does not. Nothing in the problem statement "Present a   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> method   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> to determine whether a given program halts or runs forwever   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> when   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> started with a given input to that program" says that the   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> behaviour   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> of the caller of HHH(DD) is not encoded to in the input to HHH.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> It merely requires that the required method produces the   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> correct   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> answer for any program and any input.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> Sure and equally the pure mental object of a Turing   
   >>>>>>>>>>> machine is limited in this same sort of way that it   
   >>>>>>>>>>> cannot bake a birthday cake.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> Turing machine deciders only compute the mapping   
   >>>>>>>>>>> from their finite string inputs to an accept state   
   >>>>>>>>>>> or reject state on the basis that this input finite   
   >>>>>>>>>>> string specifies a semantic or syntactic property.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> And you agreed that this means they are allowed to report on   
   >>>>>>>>>> the halt status of the machine described by the input:   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> On 10/20/2025 11:51 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>  > On 10/20/2025 10:45 PM, dbush wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>  >> And it is a semantic tautology that a finite string   
   >>>>>>>>>> description of a   
   >>>>>>>>>>  >> Turing machine is stipulated to specify all semantic   
   >>>>>>>>>> properties of the   
   >>>>>>>>>>  >> described machine, including whether it halts when   
   >>>>>>>>>> executed directly.   
   >>>>>>>>>>  >   
   >>>>>>>>>>  > Yes that is all correct   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> That is all a correct statement of the false   
   >>>>>>>>> assumption that derives the category error.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> Turing machine deciders only compute the mapping   
   >>>>>>>>> from their finite string inputs to an accept state   
   >>>>>>>>> or reject state on the basis that this input finite   
   >>>>>>>>> string specifies a semantic or syntactic property.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Repeat of previously refuted point where you explicitly agreed   
   >>>>>>>> with the refutation:   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> On 10/20/2025 11:51 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>  > On 10/20/2025 10:45 PM, dbush wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>  >> And it is a semantic tautology that a finite string   
   >>>>>>>> description of a   
   >>>>>>>>  >> Turing machine is stipulated to specify all semantic   
   >>>>>>>> properties of the   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)