XPost: comp.theory
From: chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com
On 10/28/2025 12:04 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2025-10-28, dbush wrote:
>> On 10/28/2025 12:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/28/2025 11:33 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>> On 2025-10-28, olcott wrote:
>>>>> When simulating halt decider H is reporting on the
>>>>> behavior that its input specifies then H is correct
>>>>> to reject D as non-halting.
>>
>> The above point
>>
>>>>
>>>> If H rejects D as non-halting, it makes D halting.
>>>>
>>>> I have demonstrated that with actual code.
>>>>
>>
>> Is refuted above
>>
>>>
>>> int D()
>>> {
>>> int Halt_Status = H(D);
>>> if (Halt_Status)
>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>> return Halt_Status;
>>> }
>>>
>>> H simulates D
>>> that calls H(D) to simulate D
>>> that calls H(D) to simulate D
>>> that calls H(D) to simulate D
>>> that calls H(D) to simulate D
>>> that calls H(D) to simulate D
>>> until H sees this repeating pattern.
>>>
>>> When simulating halt decider H is reporting on the
>>> behavior that its input specifies then H is correct
>>> to reject D as non-halting.
>>>
>>> Deciders only compute a mapping from their actual
>>> inputs. Computing the mapping from non-inputs is
>>> outside of the scope of Turing machines.
>>
>> And repeated above.
>>
>> Repeating a previously refuted point is less that no rebuttal and is
>> your admission that the refutation, i.e. that Kaz's code proves that D
>> is halting, is *CORRECT*.
>
> It's not necessarily a *proof* per se, because it relies on Olcott's code
> which isn't correct. It has shared, mutated states which render HHH
> impure.
>
> But the experiment does establish that we can continue "aborted"
> simulations (which Olcott has denied, calling them "totally killed),
> and that those simulations in the same apparatus produce a result which
> contradicts what was claimed (that DD does not halt; and moreover, this
> is specifically because the simulated HHH never returns to DD).
>
> In short, Olcott used a certain contraption to try to prove his claims
> (which we know is impossible and wrong since they claims go against an
> air-tight proof, deeply entrenched at the core of computer science). In
> connection with those claims, he claimed that the contraption's
> behaviors have certain properties which substantiate the claims. Code
> experiments refute those claims; the contraption's behavior does not
> have those claimed properties, like the simulated DD not returning out
> of the HHH(DD) call.
>
> We don't need these experiments to know that the whole thing is wrong,
> but it may of benefit of Olcott to have a better understanding of his
> own contraption and an additional tool to explore its behavior.
>
Agreed.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
