XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   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   
   >>>>>  >> described machine, including whether it halts when executed   
   >>>>> directly.   
   >>>>>  >   
   >>>>>  > Yes that is all correct   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> This means you agree that the finite string input to HHH(DD), which   
   >>>>> is the description of machine DD and therefore specifies all   
   >>>>> semantic properties of that machine, specifies halting behavior.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>> That is a perfectly correct statement of the   
   >>>> halting problems false assumption   
   >>>   
   >>> So you agree that the input to HHH(DD) specifies halting behavior   
   >>   
   >> *No stupid exactly the opposite of that*   
   >>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)