Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.theory > #133159

Re: My two specifications are equivalent HHH(DD)==0 is correct

From dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com>
Newsgroups comp.theory
Subject Re: My two specifications are equivalent HHH(DD)==0 is correct
Date 2025-10-20 17:34 -0400
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <10d69se$3fl92$2@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References (10 earlier) <10d5jpm$39r4i$5@dont-email.me> <20251020113559.81@kylheku.com> <10d63qk$3etck$1@dont-email.me> <10d67n8$3fl92$1@dont-email.me> <10d68ft$3g67m$2@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

On 10/20/2025 5:10 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/20/2025 3:57 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 10/20/2025 3:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> The smart people here act like when a person
>>> answers a simple yes or not question that a
>>> different answer makes them into an entirely
>>> different person. That is nutty for people and
>>> equally nutty for halt deciders.
>>
>> And that is your core misunderstanding.  READ ALL OF THE BELOW BEFORE 
>> RESPONDING:
>>
>>
> 
> <Input to LLM systems>
> 
> 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.
> 
> Simulating until you are sure that the
> simulated input cannot possibly reach
> its own simulated final halt state.

Which HHH(DD) doesn't do as correctly measured by UTM(DD).

And your lack of response to the below is your acceptance that it is 
correct, i.e. that HHH, DD, etc. are identified by the instructions 
themselves, not the name of the C function they reside in.

> 
>> These are not the same decider:
>>
>> int X(ptr *M, void *I)
>> {
>>      void *state = NULL;
>>      int done;
>>
>>      done = simulate_one_instruction(M, I, &state);
>>      if (done) {
>>          return 1;
>>      } else {
>>          return 0;
>>      }
>> }
>>
>> int X(ptr *M, void *I)
>> {
>>      void *state = NULL;
>>      int done;
>>
>>      done = simulate_two_instructions(M, I, &state);
>>      if (done) {
>>          return 1;
>>      } else {
>>          return 0;
>>      }
>> }
>>
>>
>> These are the same decider:
>>
>> int X(ptr *M, void *I)
>> {
>>      void *state = NULL;
>>      int done;
>>
>>      done = simulate_one_instruction(M, I, &state);
>>      if (done) {
>>          return 1;
>>      } else {
>>          return 0;
>>      }
>> }
>>
>> int Y(ptr *M, void *I)
>> {
>>      void *state = NULL;
>>      int done;
>>
>>      done = simulate_one_instruction(M, I, &state);
>>      if (done) {
>>          return 1;
>>      } else {
>>          return 0;
>>      }
>> }
> 
>

Back to comp.theory | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

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

csiph-web