Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #133014
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory |
| Subject | Re: My two specifications are equivalent HHH(DD)==0 is correct |
| Date | 2025-10-19 18:04 +0000 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <20251019103506.38@kylheku.com> (permalink) |
| References | (2 earlier) <10d09b1$1sjqs$1@dont-email.me> <10d0d5t$1tm7u$1@dont-email.me> <10d0dhj$1ts6s$1@dont-email.me> <20251018100403.1@kylheku.com> <10d146l$24c6h$2@dont-email.me> |
On 2025-10-18, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/18/2025 12:06 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2025-10-18, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 10/18/2025 10:53 AM, vallor wrote:
>>>> At Sat, 18 Oct 2025 09:48:01 -0500, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/18/2025 9:43 AM, vallor wrote:
>>>>>> At Sat, 18 Oct 2025 06:20:25 -0500, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Puh-LEASE stop crossposting your...stuff...to comp.lang.c.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> How about I only make one cross post per week and
>>>>> always set followup to comp.theory?
>>>>
>>>> Why? You aren't posting about C.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The core of my whole proof that
>>> *The halting problem is either incoherent or the proof wrong*
>>> depends on this simple C code
>>>
>>> <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);
>> ^^^^^^^
>>
>> This. Leaves behind an incomplete simulation. That simulation
>> denotes a halting computation; it can be stepped further, instruction
>> by instruction, until DD returns.
>>
>
> You are ignoring rule (c) and you did not ignore this
> the other day.
Rule (c) is incorrect, and unjustified. It is nothing more than
an assertion "My cranky idea is correct!" without proof.
If HHH must abort a simulation, then in many cases it /is/ correct, such
as HHH(Infinite_Recursion) and HHH(Infinite_Loop). It is not correct in
/all/ cases.
HHH can be shown to incorrectly return 0 for a terminating calculation
such as DD.
It is obvious that a diagonal input targeting a simulating decider will
/always/ appear non-terminating to a simulating decider, even though
it terminates.
The key issue is that the DD program performs a few more steps after
HHH(DD) terminates and returns to it. This is because HHH(DD)'s
behavior /specifies/ when DD terminates.
Suppose HHH(DD) returns 0 in N instructions. DD always requires
a few more instructions k after that: DD returns in N + k
instructions.
Since N and k are positive:
N + k > N
So you see? HHH(DD) is finished in N instructions, but the
complete execution of DD is N + k instructions long.
HHH(DD) has a "budget" of exactly N instructions for itself,
but getting to the end DD() requires tracing N + k instructions.
Even if HHH is so efficient that it can dispatch a single debug step of
DD for every one instruction of its own execution, its aborting
simulation cannot reach the end of DD.
Not reaching the end of DD, and returning 0, does not prove that
DD does not have an end.
While HHH must abort to prevent non-termination, the 0 value is
not correct, and cannot possibly be.
Why don't you have chat with AI about this line of thinking,
since you've chosen to believe token-predicting parrots over humans.
--
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
Back to comp.theory | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll 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