Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    sci.logic    |    Logic -- math, philosophy & computationa    |    262,912 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 261,578 of 262,912    |
|    Mikko to All    |
|    Re: Olcott is provably correct    |
|    01 Dec 25 11:31:24    |
   
   XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, comp.ai.philosophy   
   From: mikko.levanto@iki.fi   
      
   olcott kirjoitti 30.11.2025 klo 18.52:   
   > On 11/30/2025 10:15 AM, HAL 9000 wrote:   
   >> H must and always must halt for any input otherwise it isn't a halt   
   >> decider.   
   >   
   >   
   >    
   > If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its   
   > input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D   
   > would never stop running unless aborted then   
   >   
   > H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D   
   > specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.   
   >    
   >   
   > *HHH/DD has been fully operational code since above date*   
   > https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c   
   >   
   > 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);   
   > }   
   >   
   > HHH is a simulating termination analyzer that   
   > includes DD in its domain.   
   >   
   > HHH does correctly report that DD simulated   
   > by HHH (according to the semantics of the C   
   > programming language) does not halt.   
   >   
   > Halt is defined as DD reaching its own simulated   
   > "return" statement while DD is being simulated   
   > by HHH.   
   >   
   > When the halting problem requires HHH to   
   > report on the behavior of DD directly executed   
   > from main, this is a category error because it   
   > requires HHH to report on something besides   
   > the behavior that the input to HHH(DD) maps to.   
      
   As long as no proof is shown "provably correct" is no better than   
   "unproven and possible incorrect". But that does not matter as long   
   as it is not specified what Olcott is right about.   
      
   --   
   Mikko   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)   
|
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca