Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #133131
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory |
| Subject | Re: My two specifications are equivalent HHH(DD)==0 is correct |
| Date | 2025-10-20 18:50 +0000 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <20251020113559.81@kylheku.com> (permalink) |
| References | (6 earlier) <10d146l$24c6h$2@dont-email.me> <10d17vf$1nl0m$1@dont-email.me> <10d1dif$26jjq$1@dont-email.me> <20251019110512.193@kylheku.com> <10d5jpm$39r4i$5@dont-email.me> |
On 2025-10-20, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/19/2025 1:12 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2025-10-19, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 10/18/2025 6:30 PM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Sat, 18 Oct 2025 17:26:29 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> On 10/18/2025 12:06 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-10-18, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>> No. HHH can abort and still return that the input halts.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is pretty simple actually. If HHH must abort its
>>> simulation of its input to prevent its own non-termination
>>> then this input does specify non-halting behavior, duh !
>>
>> That's just something you believe and repeat without proof.
>>
>> This is easy to disprove; the aborted simulation has not actually
>> terminated; it has a next instruction that it can execute.
>>
>> (Not that it matters, but in your false claim you are agreeing
>> with this: if you believe DD doesn't terminate, you must
>> believe that the DD simulation can be continued ad nauseum,
>> and therefore it has a next instruction it can fetch,
>> decode and execute.)
>>
>
><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.
>
> It is now direct proof that the simulated input
> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
This is because you believe there is one DD which is always
the same input.
Suppose Hs is a pure simulator, and Ds is its diagonal input.
Hs(Ds) gets into non-terminating behavior: when the simulated
D37 calls Hs, that call never returns.
Therefore Ds is non-terminating. The correct value for it is 0.
Now suppose we create a different, aborting decider Ha.
If we hold the input constant, so that we are still analyzing Ds,
then we find that Ha(Ds) returns 0, and that is correct.
What seem to be unable to absorb that <Ha, Ds> are not a diagonal pair,
so they don't matter; you cannot attack the diagonal proof by pointing
to properties of non-diagonal pairs.
Although the original Ds is correctly decided by Ha, Ds is doing its job
of showing that Hs isn't a total decider. Ha deciding Ds is irrelevant.
Witht he introduction of Ha, there now exists a /new/ case Da which is
tailored to Ha. Da() is a halting procedure.
Ha does not correctly decide that one. Ha(Da) returns 0.
Ds and Da are different cases. Ds looks like:
Ds() { if Hs(Ds) loop; }
and Da looks like:
Da() { if Ha(Da) loop; }
You are not talking about the same input.
As luck would have it, the original Hs /can/ decide the new Da!
Because Da terminates, it poses no problem to the pure simulator
Hs, which traces it to completion and returns 1.
Ha(Ds) can decide correctly (0).
Hs(Da) can also decide correctly (1).
These are not on the diagonal so they do not refute the diagonal
argument.
On the diagonal, Ha(Da) decides wrongly (0), and Hs(Ds) doesn't
terminate.
--
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