Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #132911 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-10-18 06:20 -0500 |
| Last post | 2025-10-19 11:28 -0500 |
| Articles | 5 on this page of 85 — 12 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.theory
My two specifications are equivalent HHH(DD)==0 is correct olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-18 06:20 -0500
Re: My two specifications are equivalent HHH(DD)==0 is correct Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-10-18 07:49 -0400
Re: My two specifications are equivalent HHH(DD)==0 is correct vallor <vallor@vallor.earth> - 2025-10-18 14:43 +0000
Re: My two specifications are equivalent HHH(DD)==0 is correct olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-18 09:48 -0500
Re: My two specifications are equivalent HHH(DD)==0 is correct vallor <vallor@vallor.earth> - 2025-10-18 15:53 +0000
Re: My two specifications are equivalent HHH(DD)==0 is correct olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-18 10:59 -0500
Re: My two specifications are equivalent HHH(DD)==0 is correct Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-18 17:06 +0000
Re: My two specifications are equivalent HHH(DD)==0 is correct olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-18 12:09 -0500
Re: My two specifications are equivalent HHH(DD)==0 is correct Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-18 20:16 +0000
Re: My two specifications are equivalent HHH(DD)==0 is correct olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-18 17:38 -0500
Re: My two specifications are equivalent HHH(DD)==0 is correct Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-10-20 12:17 +0100
Re: My two specifications are equivalent HHH(DD)==0 is correct olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-20 12:08 -0500
Re: My two specifications are equivalent HHH(DD)==0 is correct Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-10-21 09:02 +0100
The halting problem is either incoherent or the proof wrong olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-18 19:06 -0500
Re: My two specifications are equivalent HHH(DD)==0 is correct olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-18 17:26 -0500
Re: My two specifications are equivalent HHH(DD)==0 is correct joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-10-18 23:30 +0000
Re: My two specifications are equivalent HHH(DD)==0 is correct olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-18 20:06 -0500
Re: My two specifications are equivalent HHH(DD)==0 is correct Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-19 18:12 +0000
Re: My two specifications are equivalent HHH(DD)==0 is correct olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-20 10:17 -0500
Re: My two specifications are equivalent HHH(DD)==0 is correct Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-20 18:50 +0000
Re: My two specifications are equivalent HHH(DD)==0 is correct olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-20 14:50 -0500
Re: My two specifications are equivalent HHH(DD)==0 is correct joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-10-20 20:19 +0000
Re: My two specifications are equivalent HHH(DD)==0 is correct olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-20 15:24 -0500
Re: My two specifications are equivalent HHH(DD)==0 is correct Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-20 20:54 +0000
Re: My two specifications are equivalent HHH(DD)==0 is correct "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-10-20 14:50 -0700
Re: My two specifications are equivalent HHH(DD)==0 is correct Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-20 20:35 +0000
Re: My two specifications are equivalent HHH(DD)==0 is correct Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-20 20:33 +0000
Re: My two specifications are equivalent HHH(DD)==0 is correct dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-20 16:57 -0400
Re: My two specifications are equivalent HHH(DD)==0 is correct olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-20 16:10 -0500
Re: My two specifications are equivalent HHH(DD)==0 is correct dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-20 17:34 -0400
Re: My two specifications are equivalent HHH(DD)==0 is correct Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-10-19 05:57 +0100
Re: My two specifications are equivalent HHH(DD)==0 is correct olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-19 09:40 -0500
Re: My two specifications are equivalent HHH(DD)==0 is correct Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-19 18:24 +0000
Re: My two specifications are equivalent HHH(DD)==0 is correct olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-20 10:17 -0500
Re: My two specifications are equivalent HHH(DD)==0 is correct Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-19 18:04 +0000
Re: My two specifications are equivalent HHH(DD)==0 is correct Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-10-20 02:30 +0100
Re: My two specifications are equivalent HHH(DD)==0 is correct olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-20 10:54 -0500
Re: My two specifications are equivalent HHH(DD)==0 is correct Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-20 18:31 +0000
Re: My two specifications are equivalent HHH(DD)==0 is correct olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-20 15:35 -0500
Re: My two specifications are equivalent HHH(DD)==0 is correct Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-20 20:57 +0000
Re: My two specifications are equivalent HHH(DD)==0 is correct olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-20 10:15 -0500
Re: My two specifications are equivalent HHH(DD)==0 is correct Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-20 18:35 +0000
Re: My two specifications are equivalent HHH(DD)==0 is correct olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-20 15:36 -0500
Re: My two specifications are equivalent HHH(DD)==0 is correct Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-20 20:58 +0000
Re: My two specifications are equivalent HHH(DD)==0 is correct "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-10-18 13:31 -0700
Re: My two specifications are equivalent HHH(DD)==0 is correct Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-10-19 10:58 +0100
Re: My two specifications are equivalent HHH(DD)==0 is correct olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-19 09:57 -0500
Re: My two specifications are equivalent HHH(DD)==0 is correct Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-10-19 12:56 -0700
Re: My two specifications are equivalent HHH(DD)==0 is correct Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-10-20 11:50 +0100
Re: My two specifications are equivalent HHH(DD)==0 is correct Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-18 17:03 +0000
Re: My two specifications are equivalent HHH(DD)==0 is correct olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-18 12:07 -0500
Re: My two specifications are equivalent HHH(DD)==0 is correct "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-10-18 12:54 -0700
Re: My two specifications are equivalent HHH(DD)==0 is correct "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-10-18 13:26 -0700
Re: My two specifications are equivalent HHH(DD)==0 is correct Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-10-19 10:43 +0100
Re: My two specifications are equivalent HHH(DD)==0 is correct olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-19 09:55 -0500
Re: My two specifications are equivalent HHH(DD)==0 is correct dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-19 12:15 -0400
Re: My two specifications are equivalent HHH(DD)==0 is correct joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-10-20 09:36 +0000
Re: My two specifications are equivalent HHH(DD)==0 is correct olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-20 10:59 -0500
Re: My two specifications are equivalent HHH(DD)==0 is correct joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-10-20 17:15 +0000
Re: My two specifications are equivalent HHH(DD)==0 is correct olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-20 12:33 -0500
Re: My two specifications are equivalent HHH(DD)==0 is correct Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-20 19:03 +0000
HHH(DD) Input exactly matches non-halting behavior olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-20 14:17 -0500
Re: HHH(DD) Input exactly matches non-halting behavior Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-20 20:47 +0000
Re: HHH(DD) Input exactly matches non-halting behavior olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-20 16:06 -0500
Re: HHH(DD) Input exactly matches non-halting behavior Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-20 21:11 +0000
Re: HHH(DD) Input exactly matches non-halting behavior olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-20 16:44 -0500
Re: HHH(DD) Input exactly matches non-halting behavior Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-20 22:57 +0000
Re: HHH(DD) Input exactly matches non-halting behavior olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-20 18:19 -0500
Re: HHH(DD) Input exactly matches non-halting behavior dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-20 19:46 -0400
Re: HHH(DD) Input exactly matches non-halting behavior Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-21 00:03 +0000
Re: HHH(DD) Input exactly matches non-halting behavior olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-20 19:14 -0500
Re: HHH(DD) Input exactly matches non-halting behavior Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-21 01:29 +0000
Re: HHH(DD) Input exactly matches non-halting behavior olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-20 20:35 -0500
Re: HHH(DD) Input exactly matches non-halting behavior Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-21 02:03 +0000
Re: HHH(DD) Input exactly matches non-halting behavior olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-20 21:22 -0500
Re: HHH(DD) Input exactly matches non-halting behavior Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-21 03:06 +0000
Re: HHH(DD) Input exactly matches non-halting behavior olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-20 22:18 -0500
Re: HHH(DD) Input exactly matches non-halting behavior Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-21 03:30 +0000
Re: HHH(DD) Input exactly matches non-halting behavior olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-20 22:39 -0500
Re: HHH(DD) Input exactly matches non-halting behavior Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-21 05:38 +0000
Re: My two specifications are equivalent HHH(DD)==0 is correct Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-10-20 12:09 +0100
Re: My two specifications are equivalent HHH(DD)==0 is correct Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-10-20 12:49 +0100
Re: My two specifications are equivalent HHH(DD)==0 is correct olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-20 12:10 -0500
Re: My two specifications are equivalent HHH(DD)==0 is correct Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-19 14:03 +0300
Re: My two specifications are equivalent HHH(DD)==0 is correct olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-19 11:28 -0500
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
| From | Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-20 12:09 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10d559c$3554q$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #132984 |
The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except as noted in the sig. On 19/10/2025 15:55, olcott wrote: > ...the only way that HHH(DD) would terminate [in this variant challenge> is out-of-memory > error. haha, yes, of course it's not conforming C because you recurse unboundedly! what is it undefined behaviour? > This *does not count as halting* Because it's undefined behaviour instead! of course! Okay, that's just a C puzzle, not really suitable for comp.theory is it? It's an interesting way to set a puzzle, though, with a context of one quite formal domain but a challenge in a second. It looked like a challenge in the first where there are natural assumptions that clarifying would just be so noisy as to make it uninteresting and which don't hold for the language of the second where the actual challenge lays. and of course the decision not to challenge the clarity isn't conscious due to some facet of being human. Very tricky for humans if you haven't seen the trick often and within your fields - but we're in comp.theory so shouldn't I have done better, perhaps by not attempting the challenge? -- Tristan Wibberley The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may, of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-20 12:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10d57kh$35va3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #133080 |
On 20/10/2025 12:09, Tristan Wibberley wrote: > The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except > citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except as noted in > the sig. > > On 19/10/2025 15:55, olcott wrote: >> ...the only way that HHH(DD) would terminate [in this variant challenge> is out-of-memory >> error. > > haha, yes, of course it's not conforming C because you recurse > unboundedly! what is it undefined behaviour? He doesn't recurse. His HHH calls neither DD nor itself. He thinks he recurses because he confuses execution with what is essentially a glorified desk-check. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-20 12:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <10d5qdc$3bqgl$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #133084 |
On 10/20/2025 6:49 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 20/10/2025 12:09, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
>> The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except
>> citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except as noted in
>> the sig.
>>
>> On 19/10/2025 15:55, olcott wrote:
>>> ...the only way that HHH(DD) would terminate [in this variant
>>> challenge> is out-of-memory
>>> error.
>>
>> haha, yes, of course it's not conforming C because you recurse
>> unboundedly! what is it undefined behaviour?
>
> He doesn't recurse. His HHH calls neither DD nor itself.
>
> He thinks he recurses because he confuses execution with what is
> essentially a glorified desk-check.
>
It is a set of ideas that I presented here first
and the problem has been that all the C programmers
here pretend that they don't even know C.
<Input to LLM systems>
Please think this all the way through without making any guesses
Simulating Termination Analyzer HHH correctly simulates its input until:
(a) It correctly detects that its simulated input cannot
possibly reach its own simulated final halt state then:
abort simulation and return 0 rejecting its input as non-halting.
(b) Simulated input reaches its simulated "return" statement: return 1.
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?
</Input to LLM systems>
The above is the correct basis that conclusively proves
that the input to HHH(DD) specifies non-halting behavior
that is correctly rejected.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-19 14:03 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <10d2ghn$2enuq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #132911 |
On 2025-10-18 11:20:25 +0000, olcott said:
> Both ChatGPT and Claude AI have agreed that these two
> specifications are equivalent when the last two lines
> of the first spec are interpreted to mean:
>
> H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report
> that [the simulated] D specifies a non-halting sequence
> of configurations.
>
> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
> 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.
> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>
> <Input to LLM systems>
> 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?
Note that the word "correct" has different meanings. For example,
a return value that is correct according to the specifications
(a), (b), and (c) can be incorrect as a return vaule of a halt
decider.
--
Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-19 11:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <10d33ji$2kj41$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #132970 |
On 10/19/2025 6:03 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2025-10-18 11:20:25 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> Both ChatGPT and Claude AI have agreed that these two
>> specifications are equivalent when the last two lines
>> of the first spec are interpreted to mean:
>>
>> H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report
>> that [the simulated] D specifies a non-halting sequence
>> of configurations.
>>
>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>> 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.
>> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>
>> <Input to LLM systems>
>> 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?
>
> Note that the word "correct" has different meanings. For example,
> a return value that is correct according to the specifications
> (a), (b), and (c) can be incorrect as a return vaule of a halt
> decider.
>
It turns out that the Halting Problem makes a category
error by requiring something outside the scope of Turing
machines.
Turing machine deciders can only compute the mapping from
an input finite string to the syntactic or semantic
property that this finite string *input* actually specifies.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web