XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, comp.ai.philosophy
From: 046-301-5902@kylheku.com
On 2025-12-01, olcott wrote:
> On 11/30/2025 7:44 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2025-11-30, olcott wrote:
>>> HHH does correctly report that DD simulated
>>> by HHH (according to the semantics of the C
>>> programming language) does not halt.
>>
>
> (1) It is a fact that this input to HHH(DD) does specify
> non-halting behavior according to this definition
> that you erased:
>
> An input DD that halts for a simulating termination
> analyzer HHH is defined as DD reaching its own simulated
> "return" statement while DD is being simulated by HHH.
>
> (2) It is a fact that HHH reports this.
>
> The key most important fact is that the halting
> problem *is* a category error because it requires
If you think the problem is a "category error", then ... fucking
stop discussing cases of it, with elaborate claims about
termination behavors.
If it is the case that the whole problem is a category error,
then everything that follows is erroneous and that is that.
> a halt decider to report on different behavior
> than the actual behavior that its actual input
> actually specifies.
If you believe that, then stop trying to make halt deciders
which do that, and then claim they are correct.
> This makes everything else that you say below moot
> AKA totally beside the point and irrelevant.
But that would only be because it refers to your simulation work
and the claims you have based on it, which under the assumption that
halting is errneous, are all erroneous.
--
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)
|
