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

Groups > comp.theory > #133178

Re: HHH(DD) Input exactly matches non-halting behavior

From Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com>
Newsgroups comp.theory
Subject Re: HHH(DD) Input exactly matches non-halting behavior
Date 2025-10-21 01:29 +0000
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <20251020182742.427@kylheku.com> (permalink)
References (10 earlier) <10d6agc$3gokt$1@dont-email.me> <20251020154719.424@kylheku.com> <10d6g1g$3i99b$1@dont-email.me> <20251020165843.903@kylheku.com> <10d6j9j$3ivc3$1@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

On 2025-10-21, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/20/2025 7:03 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2025-10-20, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 10/20/2025 5:57 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>> On 2025-10-20, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 10/20/2025 4:11 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-10-20, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/20/2025 3:47 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You are missing two more cases:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>      (c) It incorrectly detects that its simulated input
>>>>>>>>          is non-terminating, and wrongly rejects it with 0 as non-halting.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <Input to LLM systems>
>>>>>
>>>>> Trace through the simulation step-by-step to see of (a) (b) or (c) is
>>>>> matched before doing anything else.
>>>>
>>>> It's not that (a) isn't matched, it's that it's not correct.
>>>>
>>>
>>> (a) is the definition of correct when applied to the
>>> simulated input.
>> 
>> Here is the thing.
>> 
>> You don't get to stipulate what is correct just by dictating a random definition!
>> 
>> That is just dogma/doctrine reflecting your ideology.
>> 
>
> It has already known that:
>
> Turing machine deciders only compute the mapping
> from their finite string inputs to an accept state
> or reject state on the basis that this input finite
> string specifies a semantic or syntactic property.

That obvious fact states nothing in support of your ideological claims
about (a) being correct and whatnot.

> When you ignore this you won't understand the
> rest of what I say.

I vehemently accept the idea that decicers /must/
be pure funtions of an input that can be described in a
finite number of symbols.

It's not helping you; it's a complete /non sequitur/ to the
above objection that your (a) doesn't get so simply /dictate/
an arbitrary definition of correct.

>>> Determining the halt status of non-inputs is outside
>> 
>> There is no "non-input" here. That's just bullshit rhetroic you
>> are making up: more dogmatic ideology.

See above.

-- 
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

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