On 4/13/2025 3:00 PM, dbush wrote:
On 4/13/2025 3:59 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/13/2025 3:54 AM, joes wrote:
Am Fri, 11 Apr 2025 10:56:32 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 4/11/2025 3:24 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:Sure. Why doesn’t the STA simulate itself rejecting its input?
On 11/04/2025 08:57, Mikko wrote:
*Simulating termination analyzer Principle*No proof of this principle has been shown so its use is not valid. >>>>>>No proof of Peano's axioms or Euclid's fifth postulate has been
shown.
That doesn't mean we can't use them.
Mr Olcott can have his principle if he likes, but only by EITHER
proving it (which, as you say, he has not yet done) OR by taking
it as
axiomatic, leaving the world of mainstream computer science behind >>>>>> him,
constructing his own computational 'geometry' so to speak, and
abandoning any claim to having overturned the Halting Problem. Navel >>>>>> contemplation beckons.
Axioms are all very well, and he's free to invent as many as he
wishes,
but nobody else is obliged to accept them.
It is always correct for any simulating termination analyzer to stop >>>>> simulating and reject any input that would otherwise prevent its own >>>>> termination.
Because that is a STUPID idea and categorically impossible
because the outermost HHH sees its needs to stop simulating
before any inner HHH can possibly see this.
In other words, you agree that Linz and others are correct that no H
exists that satisfies these requirements:
Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of instructions)
X described as <X> with input Y:
A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes the
following mapping:
(<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly
(<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed
directly
No stupid! Those freaking requirements are wrong and
anchored in the ignorance of rejecting the notion
of a simulating termination analyzer OUT-OF-HAND WITHOUT REVIEW.
As anyone can see HHH MUST REJECT ITS INPUT OR GET STUPIDLY
STUCK IN NON-TERMINATION. If people were not mindless robots
they would have immediately acknowledged this years ago.
On 4/13/2025 4:03 PM, dbush wrote:
On 4/13/2025 5:00 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/13/2025 3:00 PM, dbush wrote:
On 4/13/2025 3:59 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/13/2025 3:54 AM, joes wrote:
Am Fri, 11 Apr 2025 10:56:32 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 4/11/2025 3:24 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:Sure. Why doesn’t the STA simulate itself rejecting its input?
On 11/04/2025 08:57, Mikko wrote:
*Simulating termination analyzer Principle*No proof of this principle has been shown so its use is not valid. >>>>>>>>No proof of Peano's axioms or Euclid's fifth postulate has been >>>>>>>> shown.
That doesn't mean we can't use them.
Mr Olcott can have his principle if he likes, but only by EITHER >>>>>>>> proving it (which, as you say, he has not yet done) OR by taking >>>>>>>> it as
axiomatic, leaving the world of mainstream computer science
behind him,
constructing his own computational 'geometry' so to speak, and >>>>>>>> abandoning any claim to having overturned the Halting Problem. >>>>>>>> Navel
contemplation beckons.
Axioms are all very well, and he's free to invent as many as he >>>>>>>> wishes,
but nobody else is obliged to accept them.
It is always correct for any simulating termination analyzer to stop >>>>>>> simulating and reject any input that would otherwise prevent its own >>>>>>> termination.
Because that is a STUPID idea and categorically impossible
because the outermost HHH sees its needs to stop simulating
before any inner HHH can possibly see this.
In other words, you agree that Linz and others are correct that no H
exists that satisfies these requirements:
Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of
instructions) X described as <X> with input Y:
A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes
the following mapping:
(<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly
(<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed
directly
No stupid! Those freaking requirements are wrong
In other words, you have no interest in something that would make all
truth provable.
It will remain forever impossible to prove that five minutes
ago ever existed. This is empirical truth mislabeled as synthetic truth.
Semantic truth poorly labeled as analytic truth is the only
truth that is either provable else untrue. It is {provable}
on the basis of semantic connections to expressions that are
stipulated as true.
On 4/13/2025 6:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 4/13/25 5:00 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/13/2025 3:00 PM, dbush wrote:
On 4/13/2025 3:59 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/13/2025 3:54 AM, joes wrote:
Am Fri, 11 Apr 2025 10:56:32 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 4/11/2025 3:24 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:Sure. Why doesn’t the STA simulate itself rejecting its input?
On 11/04/2025 08:57, Mikko wrote:
*Simulating termination analyzer Principle*No proof of this principle has been shown so its use is not valid. >>>>>>>>No proof of Peano's axioms or Euclid's fifth postulate has been >>>>>>>> shown.
That doesn't mean we can't use them.
Mr Olcott can have his principle if he likes, but only by EITHER >>>>>>>> proving it (which, as you say, he has not yet done) OR by taking >>>>>>>> it as
axiomatic, leaving the world of mainstream computer science
behind him,
constructing his own computational 'geometry' so to speak, and >>>>>>>> abandoning any claim to having overturned the Halting Problem. >>>>>>>> Navel
contemplation beckons.
Axioms are all very well, and he's free to invent as many as he >>>>>>>> wishes,
but nobody else is obliged to accept them.
It is always correct for any simulating termination analyzer to stop >>>>>>> simulating and reject any input that would otherwise prevent its own >>>>>>> termination.
Because that is a STUPID idea and categorically impossible
because the outermost HHH sees its needs to stop simulating
before any inner HHH can possibly see this.
In other words, you agree that Linz and others are correct that no H
exists that satisfies these requirements:
Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of
instructions) X described as <X> with input Y:
A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes
the following mapping:
(<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly
(<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed
directly
No stupid! Those freaking requirements are wrong and*
anchored in the ignorance of rejecting the notion
of a simulating termination analyzer OUT-OF-HAND WITHOUT REVIEW.
No, those "freeking requirement" *ARE* the requirements
AND AS STUPID AS {REQUIRING} A GEOMETRIC SQUARE
CIRCLE IN THE SAME TWO-DIMENSIONAL PLANE.
On 4/13/2025 6:51 PM, dbush wrote:
On 4/13/2025 7:32 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/13/2025 4:03 PM, dbush wrote:
On 4/13/2025 5:00 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/13/2025 3:00 PM, dbush wrote:
On 4/13/2025 3:59 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/13/2025 3:54 AM, joes wrote:
Am Fri, 11 Apr 2025 10:56:32 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 4/11/2025 3:24 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:Sure. Why doesn’t the STA simulate itself rejecting its input? >>>>>>>>
On 11/04/2025 08:57, Mikko wrote:
*Simulating termination analyzer Principle*No proof of this principle has been shown so its use is not >>>>>>>>>>> valid.
No proof of Peano's axioms or Euclid's fifth postulate has >>>>>>>>>> been shown.
That doesn't mean we can't use them.
Mr Olcott can have his principle if he likes, but only by EITHER >>>>>>>>>> proving it (which, as you say, he has not yet done) OR by
taking it as
axiomatic, leaving the world of mainstream computer science >>>>>>>>>> behind him,
constructing his own computational 'geometry' so to speak, and >>>>>>>>>> abandoning any claim to having overturned the Halting Problem. >>>>>>>>>> Navel
contemplation beckons.
Axioms are all very well, and he's free to invent as many as >>>>>>>>>> he wishes,
but nobody else is obliged to accept them.
It is always correct for any simulating termination analyzer to >>>>>>>>> stop
simulating and reject any input that would otherwise prevent >>>>>>>>> its own
termination.
Because that is a STUPID idea and categorically impossible
because the outermost HHH sees its needs to stop simulating
before any inner HHH can possibly see this.
In other words, you agree that Linz and others are correct that no >>>>>> H exists that satisfies these requirements:
Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of
instructions) X described as <X> with input Y:
A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes
the following mapping:
(<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly >>>>>> (<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed
directly
No stupid! Those freaking requirements are wrong
In other words, you have no interest in something that would make
all truth provable.
It will remain forever impossible to prove that five minutes
ago ever existed. This is empirical truth mislabeled as synthetic truth. >>>
Semantic truth poorly labeled as analytic truth is the only
truth that is either provable else untrue. It is {provable}
on the basis of semantic connections to expressions that are
stipulated as true.
So you do want something that would make all truth provable. An H
that meets the following requirements would do that, therefore these
requirements are not "wrong":
*Ignorance on your part about this* https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/43748/how-do-we-know- the--wasnt-created-5-minutes-ago#:~:text=Ask%20Question,non- falsifiable%20and%20all).
X described as <X> with input Y:Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of instructions)
A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes the
following mapping:
(<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly
(<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed
directly
On 4/13/2025 6:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Nothing is stupid about wanting a halt decider. It’s just not obvious
On 4/13/25 5:00 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/13/2025 3:00 PM, dbush wrote:
On 4/13/2025 3:59 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/13/2025 3:54 AM, joes wrote:
Am Fri, 11 Apr 2025 10:56:32 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 4/11/2025 3:24 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 11/04/2025 08:57, Mikko wrote:
AND AS STUPID AS {REQUIRING} A GEOMETRIC SQUARE CIRCLE IN THE SAME TWO-DIMENSIONAL PLANE.No, those "freeking requirement" *ARE* the requirementsNo stupid! Those freaking requirements are wrong and*In other words, you agree that Linz and others are correct that no HBecause that is a STUPID idea and categorically impossible becauseSure. Why doesn’t the STA simulate itself rejecting its input?Mr Olcott can have his principle if he likes, but only by EITHER >>>>>>>> proving it (which, as you say, he has not yet done) OR by taking >>>>>>>> it as axiomatic, leaving the world of mainstream computer science >>>>>>>> behind him,*Simulating termination analyzer Principle*
constructing his own computational 'geometry' so to speak, and >>>>>>>> abandoning any claim to having overturned the Halting Problem. >>>>>>>> Navel contemplation beckons.
Axioms are all very well, and he's free to invent as many as he >>>>>>>> wishes, but nobody else is obliged to accept them.
It is always correct for any simulating termination analyzer to
stop simulating and reject any input that would otherwise prevent >>>>>>> its own termination.
the outermost HHH sees its needs to stop simulating before any inner >>>>> HHH can possibly see this.
exists that satisfies these requirements:
Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of instructions)
X described as <X> with input Y:
A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes the
following mapping:
(<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly
(<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed
directly
anchored in the ignorance of rejecting the notion of a simulating
termination analyzer OUT-OF-HAND WITHOUT REVIEW.
On 4/13/2025 3:00 PM, dbush wrote:But why does it not return „I know this halts, but I can’t simulate it”?
On 4/13/2025 3:59 PM, olcott wrote:No stupid! Those freaking requirements are wrong and anchored in the ignorance of rejecting the notion of a simulating termination analyzer OUT-OF-HAND WITHOUT REVIEW.
On 4/13/2025 3:54 AM, joes wrote:In other words, you agree that Linz and others are correct that no H
Am Fri, 11 Apr 2025 10:56:32 -0500 schrieb olcott:Because that is a STUPID idea and categorically impossible because the
On 4/11/2025 3:24 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:Sure. Why doesn’t the STA simulate itself rejecting its input?
On 11/04/2025 08:57, Mikko wrote:
*Simulating termination analyzer Principle*No proof of this principle has been shown so its use is not valid. >>>>>>No proof of Peano's axioms or Euclid's fifth postulate has been
shown.
That doesn't mean we can't use them.
Mr Olcott can have his principle if he likes, but only by EITHER
proving it (which, as you say, he has not yet done) OR by taking it >>>>>> as axiomatic, leaving the world of mainstream computer science
behind him,
constructing his own computational 'geometry' so to speak, and
abandoning any claim to having overturned the Halting Problem.
Navel contemplation beckons.
Axioms are all very well, and he's free to invent as many as he
wishes,
but nobody else is obliged to accept them.
It is always correct for any simulating termination analyzer to stop >>>>> simulating and reject any input that would otherwise prevent its own >>>>> termination.
outermost HHH sees its needs to stop simulating before any inner HHH
can possibly see this.
exists that satisfies these requirements:
Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of instructions) X
described as <X> with input Y:
A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes the
following mapping:
(<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly
(<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed
directly
As anyone can see HHH MUST REJECT ITS INPUT OR GET STUPIDLY STUCK IN NON-TERMINATION. If people were not mindless robots they would have immediately acknowledged this years ago.
When people insist that a termination analyzer reports
on behavior other than the behavior that its finite string
input specifies this is isomorphic to requiring a perfectly
geometric square circle in the same two dimensional plane,
simply logically impossible, thus an incorrect requirement.
On 4/13/2025 9:12 PM, dbush wrote:DD doesn’t change anything. It is completeley determined by the return
On 4/13/2025 10:09 PM, olcott wrote:Such an HHH works fine when the input DD is not attempting to do the
On 4/13/2025 6:51 PM, dbush wrote:
On 4/13/2025 7:32 PM, olcott wrote:*Ignorance on your part about this*
On 4/13/2025 4:03 PM, dbush wrote:So you do want something that would make all truth provable. An H
On 4/13/2025 5:00 PM, olcott wrote:It will remain forever impossible to prove that five minutes ago
On 4/13/2025 3:00 PM, dbush wrote:
On 4/13/2025 3:59 PM, olcott wrote:No stupid! Those freaking requirements are wrong
On 4/13/2025 3:54 AM, joes wrote:In other words, you agree that Linz and others are correct that >>>>>>>> no H exists that satisfies these requirements:
Am Fri, 11 Apr 2025 10:56:32 -0500 schrieb olcott:Because that is a STUPID idea and categorically impossible
On 4/11/2025 3:24 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:Sure. Why doesn’t the STA simulate itself rejecting its input? >>>>>>>>>>
On 11/04/2025 08:57, Mikko wrote:
*Simulating termination analyzer Principle*No proof of this principle has been shown so its use is not >>>>>>>>>>>>> valid.
No proof of Peano's axioms or Euclid's fifth postulate has >>>>>>>>>>>> been shown.
That doesn't mean we can't use them.
Mr Olcott can have his principle if he likes, but only by >>>>>>>>>>>> EITHER proving it (which, as you say, he has not yet done) OR >>>>>>>>>>>> by taking it as axiomatic, leaving the world of mainstream >>>>>>>>>>>> computer science behind him,
constructing his own computational 'geometry' so to speak, >>>>>>>>>>>> and abandoning any claim to having overturned the Halting >>>>>>>>>>>> Problem. Navel contemplation beckons.
Axioms are all very well, and he's free to invent as many as >>>>>>>>>>>> he wishes,
but nobody else is obliged to accept them.
It is always correct for any simulating termination analyzer >>>>>>>>>>> to stop simulating and reject any input that would otherwise >>>>>>>>>>> prevent its own termination.
because the outermost HHH sees its needs to stop simulating
before any inner HHH can possibly see this.
Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of
instructions) X described as <X> with input Y:
A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes >>>>>>>> the following mapping:
(<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed
directly (<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when >>>>>>>> executed directly
In other words, you have no interest in something that would make
all truth provable.
ever existed. This is empirical truth mislabeled as synthetic truth. >>>>> Semantic truth poorly labeled as analytic truth is the only truth
that is either provable else untrue. It is {provable}
on the basis of semantic connections to expressions that are
stipulated as true.
that meets the following requirements would do that, therefore these
requirements are not "wrong":
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/43748/how-do-we-know-
the--wasnt-created-5-minutes-ago#:~:text=Ask%20Question,non-
falsifiable%20and%20all).
None-the-less an H that meets the requirements below would make all
formal systems complete. That makes such an H *very* useful, and
therefore the requirements are not "wrong".
Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of instructions)
X described as <X> with input Y:
A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes the
following mapping:
(<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly
(<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed
directly
opposite of whatever this HHH reports. This is not a problem though. DD merely changes its own behavior through the pathological self-reference
that it implements.
Then HHH simply reports on this changed behavior. HHH need not even knowIf HHH reports on what DD *would* do *if* HHH returned the other value, that’s changing the input. (HHH doesn’t „know” anything at all.)
that DD is calling itself. It only need to know that the behavior of DD
would prevent its own termination.
On 4/14/2025 4:25 AM, joes wrote:
Am Sun, 13 Apr 2025 21:11:56 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 4/13/2025 6:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Nothing is stupid about wanting a halt decider. It’s just not obvious
On 4/13/25 5:00 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/13/2025 3:00 PM, dbush wrote:
On 4/13/2025 3:59 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/13/2025 3:54 AM, joes wrote:
Am Fri, 11 Apr 2025 10:56:32 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 4/11/2025 3:24 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 11/04/2025 08:57, Mikko wrote:
AND AS STUPID AS {REQUIRING} A GEOMETRIC SQUARE CIRCLE IN THE SAMENo, those "freeking requirement" *ARE* the requirementsNo stupid! Those freaking requirements are wrong and*In other words, you agree that Linz and others are correct that no H >>>>>> exists that satisfies these requirements:Because that is a STUPID idea and categorically impossible because >>>>>>> the outermost HHH sees its needs to stop simulating before any inner >>>>>>> HHH can possibly see this.Sure. Why doesn’t the STA simulate itself rejecting its input? >>>>>>>>Mr Olcott can have his principle if he likes, but only by EITHER >>>>>>>>>> proving it (which, as you say, he has not yet done) OR by taking >>>>>>>>>> it as axiomatic, leaving the world of mainstream computer science >>>>>>>>>> behind him,*Simulating termination analyzer Principle*
constructing his own computational 'geometry' so to speak, and >>>>>>>>>> abandoning any claim to having overturned the Halting Problem. >>>>>>>>>> Navel contemplation beckons.
Axioms are all very well, and he's free to invent as many as he >>>>>>>>>> wishes, but nobody else is obliged to accept them.
It is always correct for any simulating termination analyzer to >>>>>>>>> stop simulating and reject any input that would otherwise prevent >>>>>>>>> its own termination.
Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of instructions) >>>>>> X described as <X> with input Y:
A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes the >>>>>> following mapping:
(<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly >>>>>> (<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed
directly
anchored in the ignorance of rejecting the notion of a simulating
termination analyzer OUT-OF-HAND WITHOUT REVIEW.
TWO-DIMENSIONAL PLANE.
that it’s impossible.
When people insist that a termination analyzer reports
on behavior other than the behavior that its finite string
input specifies this is isomorphic to requiring a perfectly
geometric square circle in the same two dimensional plane,
simply logically impossible, thus an incorrect requirement.
On 4/14/2025 6:52 AM, dbush wrote:
On 4/14/2025 7:46 AM, olcott wrote:
Such an HHH works fine when the input DD is not attempting
to do the opposite of whatever this HHH reports. This is not
a problem though. DD merely changes its own behavior through
the pathological self-reference that it implements.
Category error. DD is an algorithm, i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of
instructions, therefore "changing its behavior" is impossible. It
only does exactly what its instructions say.
One version of DD is defined to screw with HHH.
Then HHH simply reports on this changed behavior. HHH need not
even know that DD is calling itself. It only need to know that
the behavior of DD would prevent its own termination.
In other words, HHH is changing the input and reporting on the changed
input.
Changing the input is not allowed.
On 4/13/2025 9:12 PM, dbush wrote:
On 4/13/2025 10:09 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/13/2025 6:51 PM, dbush wrote:
On 4/13/2025 7:32 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/13/2025 4:03 PM, dbush wrote:
On 4/13/2025 5:00 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/13/2025 3:00 PM, dbush wrote:
On 4/13/2025 3:59 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/13/2025 3:54 AM, joes wrote:
Am Fri, 11 Apr 2025 10:56:32 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 4/11/2025 3:24 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:Sure. Why doesn’t the STA simulate itself rejecting its input? >>>>>>>>>>
On 11/04/2025 08:57, Mikko wrote:
*Simulating termination analyzer Principle*No proof of this principle has been shown so its use is not >>>>>>>>>>>>> valid.
No proof of Peano's axioms or Euclid's fifth postulate has >>>>>>>>>>>> been shown.
That doesn't mean we can't use them.
Mr Olcott can have his principle if he likes, but only by >>>>>>>>>>>> EITHER
proving it (which, as you say, he has not yet done) OR by >>>>>>>>>>>> taking it as
axiomatic, leaving the world of mainstream computer science >>>>>>>>>>>> behind him,
constructing his own computational 'geometry' so to speak, and >>>>>>>>>>>> abandoning any claim to having overturned the Halting
Problem. Navel
contemplation beckons.
Axioms are all very well, and he's free to invent as many as >>>>>>>>>>>> he wishes,
but nobody else is obliged to accept them.
It is always correct for any simulating termination analyzer >>>>>>>>>>> to stop
simulating and reject any input that would otherwise prevent >>>>>>>>>>> its own
termination.
Because that is a STUPID idea and categorically impossible
because the outermost HHH sees its needs to stop simulating
before any inner HHH can possibly see this.
In other words, you agree that Linz and others are correct that >>>>>>>> no H exists that satisfies these requirements:
Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of
instructions) X described as <X> with input Y:
A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that
computes the following mapping:
(<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly >>>>>>>> (<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when
executed directly
No stupid! Those freaking requirements are wrong
In other words, you have no interest in something that would make
all truth provable.
It will remain forever impossible to prove that five minutes
ago ever existed. This is empirical truth mislabeled as synthetic
truth.
Semantic truth poorly labeled as analytic truth is the only
truth that is either provable else untrue. It is {provable}
on the basis of semantic connections to expressions that are
stipulated as true.
So you do want something that would make all truth provable. An H
that meets the following requirements would do that, therefore these
requirements are not "wrong":
*Ignorance on your part about this*
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/43748/how-do-we-know-
the--wasnt-created-5-minutes-ago#:~:text=Ask%20Question,non-
falsifiable%20and%20all).
None-the-less an H that meets the requirements below would make all
formal systems complete. That makes such an H *very* useful, and
therefore the requirements are not "wrong".
Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of
instructions) X described as <X> with input Y:
A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes
the following mapping:
(<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly
(<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed
directly
Such an HHH works fine when the input DD is not attempting
to do the opposite of whatever this HHH reports. This is not
a problem though. DD merely changes its own behavior through
the pathological self-reference that it implements.
Then HHH simply reports on this changed behavior. HHH need not
even know that DD is calling itself. It only need to know that
the behavior of DD would prevent its own termination.
On 4/13/2025 9:13 PM, dbush wrote:
On 4/13/2025 10:11 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/13/2025 6:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 4/13/25 5:00 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/13/2025 3:00 PM, dbush wrote:
On 4/13/2025 3:59 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/13/2025 3:54 AM, joes wrote:
Am Fri, 11 Apr 2025 10:56:32 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 4/11/2025 3:24 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:Sure. Why doesn’t the STA simulate itself rejecting its input? >>>>>>>>
On 11/04/2025 08:57, Mikko wrote:
*Simulating termination analyzer Principle*No proof of this principle has been shown so its use is not >>>>>>>>>>> valid.
No proof of Peano's axioms or Euclid's fifth postulate has >>>>>>>>>> been shown.
That doesn't mean we can't use them.
Mr Olcott can have his principle if he likes, but only by EITHER >>>>>>>>>> proving it (which, as you say, he has not yet done) OR by
taking it as
axiomatic, leaving the world of mainstream computer science >>>>>>>>>> behind him,
constructing his own computational 'geometry' so to speak, and >>>>>>>>>> abandoning any claim to having overturned the Halting Problem. >>>>>>>>>> Navel
contemplation beckons.
Axioms are all very well, and he's free to invent as many as >>>>>>>>>> he wishes,
but nobody else is obliged to accept them.
It is always correct for any simulating termination analyzer to >>>>>>>>> stop
simulating and reject any input that would otherwise prevent >>>>>>>>> its own
termination.
Because that is a STUPID idea and categorically impossible
because the outermost HHH sees its needs to stop simulating
before any inner HHH can possibly see this.
In other words, you agree that Linz and others are correct that no >>>>>> H exists that satisfies these requirements:
Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of
instructions) X described as <X> with input Y:
A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes
the following mapping:
(<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly >>>>>> (<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed
directly
No stupid! Those freaking requirements are wrong and*
anchored in the ignorance of rejecting the notion
of a simulating termination analyzer OUT-OF-HAND WITHOUT REVIEW.
No, those "freeking requirement" *ARE* the requirements
AND AS STUPID AS {REQUIRING} A GEOMETRIC SQUARE
CIRCLE IN THE SAME TWO-DIMENSIONAL PLANE.
In other words, you think something that would make all formal systems
complete would be stupid.
Formal systems are only incomplete[math] because they do not
screen_out[] and reject[0] incorrect[0] inputs[0] thus enable undecidability[math].
On 4/14/2025 4:25 AM, joes wrote:
Am Sun, 13 Apr 2025 21:11:56 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 4/13/2025 6:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Nothing is stupid about wanting a halt decider. It’s just not obvious
On 4/13/25 5:00 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/13/2025 3:00 PM, dbush wrote:
On 4/13/2025 3:59 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/13/2025 3:54 AM, joes wrote:
Am Fri, 11 Apr 2025 10:56:32 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 4/11/2025 3:24 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 11/04/2025 08:57, Mikko wrote:
AND AS STUPID AS {REQUIRING} A GEOMETRIC SQUARE CIRCLE IN THE SAMENo, those "freeking requirement" *ARE* the requirementsNo stupid! Those freaking requirements are wrong and*In other words, you agree that Linz and others are correct that no H >>>>>> exists that satisfies these requirements:Because that is a STUPID idea and categorically impossible because >>>>>>> the outermost HHH sees its needs to stop simulating before any inner >>>>>>> HHH can possibly see this.Sure. Why doesn’t the STA simulate itself rejecting its input? >>>>>>>>Mr Olcott can have his principle if he likes, but only by EITHER >>>>>>>>>> proving it (which, as you say, he has not yet done) OR by taking >>>>>>>>>> it as axiomatic, leaving the world of mainstream computer science >>>>>>>>>> behind him,*Simulating termination analyzer Principle*
constructing his own computational 'geometry' so to speak, and >>>>>>>>>> abandoning any claim to having overturned the Halting Problem. >>>>>>>>>> Navel contemplation beckons.
Axioms are all very well, and he's free to invent as many as he >>>>>>>>>> wishes, but nobody else is obliged to accept them.
It is always correct for any simulating termination analyzer to >>>>>>>>> stop simulating and reject any input that would otherwise prevent >>>>>>>>> its own termination.
Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of instructions) >>>>>> X described as <X> with input Y:
A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes the >>>>>> following mapping:
(<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly >>>>>> (<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed
directly
anchored in the ignorance of rejecting the notion of a simulating
termination analyzer OUT-OF-HAND WITHOUT REVIEW.
TWO-DIMENSIONAL PLANE.
that it’s impossible.
When people insist that a termination analyzer reports
on behavior other than the behavior that its finite string
input specifies this is isomorphic to requiring a perfectly
geometric square circle in the same two dimensional plane,
simply logically impossible, thus an incorrect requirement.
On 4/14/2025 7:22 AM, dbush wrote:
On 4/14/2025 8:01 AM, olcott wrote:
On 4/13/2025 9:13 PM, dbush wrote:
On 4/13/2025 10:11 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/13/2025 6:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 4/13/25 5:00 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/13/2025 3:00 PM, dbush wrote:
On 4/13/2025 3:59 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/13/2025 3:54 AM, joes wrote:
Am Fri, 11 Apr 2025 10:56:32 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 4/11/2025 3:24 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:Sure. Why doesn’t the STA simulate itself rejecting its input? >>>>>>>>>>
On 11/04/2025 08:57, Mikko wrote:
*Simulating termination analyzer Principle*No proof of this principle has been shown so its use is not >>>>>>>>>>>>> valid.
No proof of Peano's axioms or Euclid's fifth postulate has >>>>>>>>>>>> been shown.
That doesn't mean we can't use them.
Mr Olcott can have his principle if he likes, but only by >>>>>>>>>>>> EITHER
proving it (which, as you say, he has not yet done) OR by >>>>>>>>>>>> taking it as
axiomatic, leaving the world of mainstream computer science >>>>>>>>>>>> behind him,
constructing his own computational 'geometry' so to speak, and >>>>>>>>>>>> abandoning any claim to having overturned the Halting
Problem. Navel
contemplation beckons.
Axioms are all very well, and he's free to invent as many as >>>>>>>>>>>> he wishes,
but nobody else is obliged to accept them.
It is always correct for any simulating termination analyzer >>>>>>>>>>> to stop
simulating and reject any input that would otherwise prevent >>>>>>>>>>> its own
termination.
Because that is a STUPID idea and categorically impossible
because the outermost HHH sees its needs to stop simulating
before any inner HHH can possibly see this.
In other words, you agree that Linz and others are correct that >>>>>>>> no H exists that satisfies these requirements:
Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of
instructions) X described as <X> with input Y:
A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that
computes the following mapping:
(<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly >>>>>>>> (<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when
executed directly
No stupid! Those freaking requirements are wrong and*
anchored in the ignorance of rejecting the notion
of a simulating termination analyzer OUT-OF-HAND WITHOUT REVIEW.
No, those "freeking requirement" *ARE* the requirements
AND AS STUPID AS {REQUIRING} A GEOMETRIC SQUARE
CIRCLE IN THE SAME TWO-DIMENSIONAL PLANE.
In other words, you think something that would make all formal
systems complete would be stupid.
Formal systems are only incomplete[math] because
They contain unknowable truths.
Undecidability is always caused by the incoherent
notion of formal systems. Unknowability has NOTHING
to do with this.
An H that meets these requirements would make those unknowable truths
knowable:
Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of instructions)
X described as <X> with input Y:
A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes the
following mapping:
(<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly
(<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed
directly
On 4/14/2025 7:39 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 14/04/2025 12:56, olcott wrote:
<snip>
When people insist that a termination analyzer reports
on behavior other than the behavior that its finite string
input specifies this is isomorphic to requiring a perfectly
geometric square circle in the same two dimensional plane,
simply logically impossible, thus an incorrect requirement.
A termination analyzer that works is simply logically
impossible, thus an incorrect requirement.
THAT IS A STUPID THING TO SAY THAT COMPLETELY IGNORES WHAT
COMPUTABLE FUNCTIONS ARE AND HOW THEY WORK.
HHH CORRECTLY REPORTS ON THE PATHOLOGICAL SELF-REFERENCE THAT
ITS INPUT SPECIFIES. THE DIRECT EXECUTION HAS NO SUCH PSR.
On 4/14/2025 7:39 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 14/04/2025 12:56, olcott wrote:
<snip>
When people insist that a termination analyzer reports
on behavior other than the behavior that its finite string
input specifies this is isomorphic to requiring a perfectly
geometric square circle in the same two dimensional plane,
simply logically impossible, thus an incorrect requirement.
A termination analyzer that works is simply logically impossible, thus
an incorrect requirement.
<Sarcasm>
Yes and Tarki is right because we are supposed to be able
to prove that self-contradictory expressions are true.
</sarcasm>
On 4/14/2025 7:33 AM, joes wrote:
Am Mon, 14 Apr 2025 06:46:20 -0500 schrieb olcott:
Such an HHH works fine when the input DD is not attempting to do theDD doesn’t change anything. It is completeley determined by the return
opposite of whatever this HHH reports. This is not a problem though. DD
merely changes its own behavior through the pathological self-reference
that it implements.
value of HHH. Either it halts or it doesn’t, and HHH returns the wrong
result.
Then HHH simply reports on this changed behavior. HHH need not even know >>> that DD is calling itself. It only need to know that the behavior of DDIf HHH reports on what DD *would* do *if* HHH returned the other value,
would prevent its own termination.
that’s changing the input. (HHH doesn’t „know” anything at all.)
Hypothetical freaking possibilities of alternatives is
not a very difficult thing. I don't understand why its so
hard for you.
On 4/14/2025 7:39 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 14/04/2025 12:56, olcott wrote:
<snip>
When people insist that a termination analyzer reports
on behavior other than the behavior that its finite string
input specifies this is isomorphic to requiring a perfectly
geometric square circle in the same two dimensional plane,
simply logically impossible, thus an incorrect requirement.
A termination analyzer that works is simply logically impossible, thus
an incorrect requirement.
THAT IS A STUPID THING TO SAY THAT COMPLETELY IGNORES WHAT
COMPUTABLE FUNCTIONS ARE AND HOW THEY WORK.
HHH CORRECTLY REPORTS ON THE PATHOLOGICAL SELF-REFERENCE THAT
ITS INPUT SPECIFIES. THE DIRECT EXECUTION HAS NO SUCH PSR.
On 4/14/2025 4:29 AM, joes wrote:
Am Sun, 13 Apr 2025 16:00:43 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 4/13/2025 3:00 PM, dbush wrote:But why does it not return „I know this halts, but I can’t simulate it”?
On 4/13/2025 3:59 PM, olcott wrote:No stupid! Those freaking requirements are wrong and anchored in the
On 4/13/2025 3:54 AM, joes wrote:In other words, you agree that Linz and others are correct that no H
Am Fri, 11 Apr 2025 10:56:32 -0500 schrieb olcott:Because that is a STUPID idea and categorically impossible because the >>>>> outermost HHH sees its needs to stop simulating before any inner HHH >>>>> can possibly see this.
On 4/11/2025 3:24 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:Sure. Why doesn’t the STA simulate itself rejecting its input?
On 11/04/2025 08:57, Mikko wrote:
*Simulating termination analyzer Principle*No proof of this principle has been shown so its use is not valid. >>>>>>>>No proof of Peano's axioms or Euclid's fifth postulate has been >>>>>>>> shown.
That doesn't mean we can't use them.
Mr Olcott can have his principle if he likes, but only by EITHER >>>>>>>> proving it (which, as you say, he has not yet done) OR by taking it >>>>>>>> as axiomatic, leaving the world of mainstream computer science >>>>>>>> behind him,
constructing his own computational 'geometry' so to speak, and >>>>>>>> abandoning any claim to having overturned the Halting Problem. >>>>>>>> Navel contemplation beckons.
Axioms are all very well, and he's free to invent as many as he >>>>>>>> wishes,
but nobody else is obliged to accept them.
It is always correct for any simulating termination analyzer to stop >>>>>>> simulating and reject any input that would otherwise prevent its own >>>>>>> termination.
exists that satisfies these requirements:
Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of instructions) X >>>> described as <X> with input Y:
A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes the
following mapping:
(<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly
(<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed
directly
ignorance of rejecting the notion of a simulating termination analyzer >>> OUT-OF-HAND WITHOUT REVIEW.
As anyone can see HHH MUST REJECT ITS INPUT OR GET STUPIDLY STUCK IN
NON-TERMINATION. If people were not mindless robots they would have
immediately acknowledged this years ago.
Because it is not a liar and tells the truth for
every input in its domain.
On 4/14/2025 8:45 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 15/04/2025 02:18, olcott wrote:
On 4/14/2025 7:39 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 14/04/2025 12:56, olcott wrote:
<snip>
When people insist that a termination analyzer reports
on behavior other than the behavior that its finite string
input specifies this is isomorphic to requiring a perfectly
geometric square circle in the same two dimensional plane,
simply logically impossible, thus an incorrect requirement.
A termination analyzer that works is simply logically
impossible, thus an incorrect requirement.
THAT IS A STUPID THING TO SAY THAT COMPLETELY IGNORES WHAT
COMPUTABLE FUNCTIONS ARE AND HOW THEY WORK.
You said precisely the same thing in reply to dbush. I have
addressed your remark there, so I see no value in repeating my
reply here.
HHH CORRECTLY REPORTS ON THE PATHOLOGICAL SELF-REFERENCE THAT
ITS INPUT SPECIFIES. THE DIRECT EXECUTION HAS NO SUCH PSR.
You say so,
Ignoring verified facts does not make them go away.
Only comprehension ultimately rules.
so I think I'll wait until your claim is confirmed by an
independent observer.
Thus forever postponing the ultimate measure of direct
comprehension.
On 4/14/2025 12:15 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 14.apr.2025 om 13:56 schreef olcott:
On 4/14/2025 4:25 AM, joes wrote:
Am Sun, 13 Apr 2025 21:11:56 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 4/13/2025 6:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Nothing is stupid about wanting a halt decider. It’s just not obvious >>>> that it’s impossible.
On 4/13/25 5:00 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/13/2025 3:00 PM, dbush wrote:
On 4/13/2025 3:59 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/13/2025 3:54 AM, joes wrote:
Am Fri, 11 Apr 2025 10:56:32 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 4/11/2025 3:24 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 11/04/2025 08:57, Mikko wrote:
AND AS STUPID AS {REQUIRING} A GEOMETRIC SQUARE CIRCLE IN THE SAMENo, those "freeking requirement" *ARE* the requirementsNo stupid! Those freaking requirements are wrong and*In other words, you agree that Linz and others are correct that >>>>>>>> no HBecause that is a STUPID idea and categorically impossible because >>>>>>>>> the outermost HHH sees its needs to stop simulating before any >>>>>>>>> innerSure. Why doesn’t the STA simulate itself rejecting its input? >>>>>>>>>>Mr Olcott can have his principle if he likes, but only by >>>>>>>>>>>> EITHER*Simulating termination analyzer Principle*
proving it (which, as you say, he has not yet done) OR by >>>>>>>>>>>> taking
it as axiomatic, leaving the world of mainstream computer >>>>>>>>>>>> science
behind him,
constructing his own computational 'geometry' so to speak, and >>>>>>>>>>>> abandoning any claim to having overturned the Halting Problem. >>>>>>>>>>>> Navel contemplation beckons.
Axioms are all very well, and he's free to invent as many as he >>>>>>>>>>>> wishes, but nobody else is obliged to accept them.
It is always correct for any simulating termination analyzer to >>>>>>>>>>> stop simulating and reject any input that would otherwise >>>>>>>>>>> prevent
its own termination.
HHH can possibly see this.
exists that satisfies these requirements:
Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of
instructions)
X described as <X> with input Y:
A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that
computes the
following mapping:
(<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly >>>>>>>> (<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed >>>>>>>> directly
anchored in the ignorance of rejecting the notion of a simulating >>>>>>> termination analyzer OUT-OF-HAND WITHOUT REVIEW.
TWO-DIMENSIONAL PLANE.
When people insist that a termination analyzer reports
on behavior other than the behavior that its finite string
input specifies this is isomorphic to requiring a perfectly
geometric square circle in the same two dimensional plane,
simply logically impossible, thus an incorrect requirement.
It is very clear what its finite string input specifies: when exactly
this same finite string input is used in direct execution or in world-
class simulators,
And by this same reasoning we can say that
int sum(int x, int y) { return x + y; }
returns 7 for sum(2,3) because it returns 7 for sum(5,2).
On 4/14/2025 8:45 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 15/04/2025 02:18, olcott wrote:
On 4/14/2025 7:39 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 14/04/2025 12:56, olcott wrote:
<snip>
When people insist that a termination analyzer reports
on behavior other than the behavior that its finite string
input specifies this is isomorphic to requiring a perfectly
geometric square circle in the same two dimensional plane,
simply logically impossible, thus an incorrect requirement.
A termination analyzer that works is simply logically impossible, thus >>>> an incorrect requirement.
THAT IS A STUPID THING TO SAY THAT COMPLETELY IGNORES WHAT
COMPUTABLE FUNCTIONS ARE AND HOW THEY WORK.
You said precisely the same thing in reply to dbush. I have addressed
your remark there, so I see no value in repeating my reply here.
HHH CORRECTLY REPORTS ON THE PATHOLOGICAL SELF-REFERENCE THAT
ITS INPUT SPECIFIES. THE DIRECT EXECUTION HAS NO SUCH PSR.
You say so,
Ignoring verified facts does not make them go away.
On 4/14/2025 8:45 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 15/04/2025 02:18, olcott wrote:
On 4/14/2025 7:39 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 14/04/2025 12:56, olcott wrote:
<snip>
When people insist that a termination analyzer reports
on behavior other than the behavior that its finite string
input specifies this is isomorphic to requiring a perfectly
geometric square circle in the same two dimensional plane,
simply logically impossible, thus an incorrect requirement.
A termination analyzer that works is simply logically impossible,
thus an incorrect requirement.
THAT IS A STUPID THING TO SAY THAT COMPLETELY IGNORES WHAT
COMPUTABLE FUNCTIONS ARE AND HOW THEY WORK.
You said precisely the same thing in reply to dbush. I have addressed
your remark there, so I see no value in repeating my reply here.
HHH CORRECTLY REPORTS ON THE PATHOLOGICAL SELF-REFERENCE THAT
ITS INPUT SPECIFIES. THE DIRECT EXECUTION HAS NO SUCH PSR.
You say so,
Ignoring verified facts does not make them go away.
but as it's you saying it and you can't even turn off CAPS LOCK I see
no reason to believe that you have the capacity to be right,
Belief and disbelief are inherently fallible.
Only comprehension ultimately rules.
so I think I'll wait until your claim is confirmed by an independent
observer.
Thus forever postponing the ultimate measure of direct comprehension.
On 4/14/2025 12:15 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 14.apr.2025 om 13:56 schreef olcott:
On 4/14/2025 4:25 AM, joes wrote:
Am Sun, 13 Apr 2025 21:11:56 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 4/13/2025 6:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Nothing is stupid about wanting a halt decider. It’s just not obvious >>>> that it’s impossible.
On 4/13/25 5:00 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/13/2025 3:00 PM, dbush wrote:
On 4/13/2025 3:59 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/13/2025 3:54 AM, joes wrote:
Am Fri, 11 Apr 2025 10:56:32 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 4/11/2025 3:24 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 11/04/2025 08:57, Mikko wrote:
AND AS STUPID AS {REQUIRING} A GEOMETRIC SQUARE CIRCLE IN THE SAMENo, those "freeking requirement" *ARE* the requirementsNo stupid! Those freaking requirements are wrong and*In other words, you agree that Linz and others are correct that >>>>>>>> no HBecause that is a STUPID idea and categorically impossible because >>>>>>>>> the outermost HHH sees its needs to stop simulating before any >>>>>>>>> innerSure. Why doesn’t the STA simulate itself rejecting its input? >>>>>>>>>>Mr Olcott can have his principle if he likes, but only by >>>>>>>>>>>> EITHER*Simulating termination analyzer Principle*
proving it (which, as you say, he has not yet done) OR by >>>>>>>>>>>> taking
it as axiomatic, leaving the world of mainstream computer >>>>>>>>>>>> science
behind him,
constructing his own computational 'geometry' so to speak, and >>>>>>>>>>>> abandoning any claim to having overturned the Halting Problem. >>>>>>>>>>>> Navel contemplation beckons.
Axioms are all very well, and he's free to invent as many as he >>>>>>>>>>>> wishes, but nobody else is obliged to accept them.
It is always correct for any simulating termination analyzer to >>>>>>>>>>> stop simulating and reject any input that would otherwise >>>>>>>>>>> prevent
its own termination.
HHH can possibly see this.
exists that satisfies these requirements:
Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of
instructions)
X described as <X> with input Y:
A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that
computes the
following mapping:
(<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly >>>>>>>> (<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed >>>>>>>> directly
anchored in the ignorance of rejecting the notion of a simulating >>>>>>> termination analyzer OUT-OF-HAND WITHOUT REVIEW.
TWO-DIMENSIONAL PLANE.
When people insist that a termination analyzer reports
on behavior other than the behavior that its finite string
input specifies this is isomorphic to requiring a perfectly
geometric square circle in the same two dimensional plane,
simply logically impossible, thus an incorrect requirement.
It is very clear what its finite string input specifies: when exactly
this same finite string input is used in direct execution or in world-
class simulators,
And by this same reasoning we can say that
int sum(int x, int y) { return x + y; }
returns 7 for sum(2,3) because it returns 7 for sum(5,2).
we see that it specifies a halting program according to the unique
semantics of the x86 language.
It is not clear what a geometric square circle is. So, your comparison
fails.
But I think we agree that there is no algorithm that can determine for
all possible inputs whether the input specifies a program that
(according to the semantics of the machine language) halts when
directly executed. Correct?
On 4/14/2025 4:29 AM, joes wrote:Aha. Then why does it not simulate it and say that it halts?
Am Sun, 13 Apr 2025 16:00:43 -0500 schrieb olcott:Because it is not a liar and tells the truth for every input in its
On 4/13/2025 3:00 PM, dbush wrote:But why does it not return „I know this halts, but I can’t simulate
On 4/13/2025 3:59 PM, olcott wrote:No stupid! Those freaking requirements are wrong and anchored in the
On 4/13/2025 3:54 AM, joes wrote:In other words, you agree that Linz and others are correct that no H
Am Fri, 11 Apr 2025 10:56:32 -0500 schrieb olcott:Because that is a STUPID idea and categorically impossible because
On 4/11/2025 3:24 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:Sure. Why doesn’t the STA simulate itself rejecting its input?
On 11/04/2025 08:57, Mikko wrote:
*Simulating termination analyzer Principle*No proof of this principle has been shown so its use is notNo proof of Peano's axioms or Euclid's fifth postulate has been >>>>>>>> shown.
valid.
That doesn't mean we can't use them.
Mr Olcott can have his principle if he likes, but only by EITHER >>>>>>>> proving it (which, as you say, he has not yet done) OR by taking >>>>>>>> it as axiomatic, leaving the world of mainstream computer science >>>>>>>> behind him,
constructing his own computational 'geometry' so to speak, and >>>>>>>> abandoning any claim to having overturned the Halting Problem. >>>>>>>> Navel contemplation beckons.
Axioms are all very well, and he's free to invent as many as he >>>>>>>> wishes,
but nobody else is obliged to accept them.
It is always correct for any simulating termination analyzer to
stop simulating and reject any input that would otherwise prevent >>>>>>> its own termination.
the outermost HHH sees its needs to stop simulating before any inner >>>>> HHH can possibly see this.
exists that satisfies these requirements:
Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of instructions)
X described as <X> with input Y:
A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes the
following mapping:
(<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly
(<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed
directly
ignorance of rejecting the notion of a simulating termination
analyzer OUT-OF-HAND WITHOUT REVIEW.
As anyone can see HHH MUST REJECT ITS INPUT OR GET STUPIDLY STUCK IN
NON-TERMINATION. If people were not mindless robots they would have
immediately acknowledged this years ago.
it”?
domain.
On 4/14/2025 6:52 AM, dbush wrote:There is only one DD.
On 4/14/2025 7:46 AM, olcott wrote:One version of DD is defined to screw with HHH.
Category error. DD is an algorithm, i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of
Such an HHH works fine when the input DD is not attempting to do the
opposite of whatever this HHH reports. This is not a problem though.
DD merely changes its own behavior through the pathological
self-reference that it implements.
instructions, therefore "changing its behavior" is impossible. It only
does exactly what its instructions say.
On 4/22/2025 7:42 AM, joes wrote:
Am Mon, 14 Apr 2025 17:48:36 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 4/14/2025 4:29 AM, joes wrote:Aha. Then why does it not simulate it and say that it halts?
Am Sun, 13 Apr 2025 16:00:43 -0500 schrieb olcott:Because it is not a liar and tells the truth for every input in its
On 4/13/2025 3:00 PM, dbush wrote:But why does it not return „I know this halts, but I can’t simulate >>>> it”?
On 4/13/2025 3:59 PM, olcott wrote:No stupid! Those freaking requirements are wrong and anchored in the >>>>> ignorance of rejecting the notion of a simulating termination
On 4/13/2025 3:54 AM, joes wrote:In other words, you agree that Linz and others are correct that no H >>>>>> exists that satisfies these requirements:
Am Fri, 11 Apr 2025 10:56:32 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 4/11/2025 3:24 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:Sure. Why doesn’t the STA simulate itself rejecting its input? >>>>>>> Because that is a STUPID idea and categorically impossible because >>>>>>> the outermost HHH sees its needs to stop simulating before any inner >>>>>>> HHH can possibly see this.
On 11/04/2025 08:57, Mikko wrote:
*Simulating termination analyzer Principle*No proof of this principle has been shown so its use is not >>>>>>>>>>> valid.No proof of Peano's axioms or Euclid's fifth postulate has been >>>>>>>>>> shown.
That doesn't mean we can't use them.
Mr Olcott can have his principle if he likes, but only by EITHER >>>>>>>>>> proving it (which, as you say, he has not yet done) OR by taking >>>>>>>>>> it as axiomatic, leaving the world of mainstream computer science >>>>>>>>>> behind him,
constructing his own computational 'geometry' so to speak, and >>>>>>>>>> abandoning any claim to having overturned the Halting Problem. >>>>>>>>>> Navel contemplation beckons.
Axioms are all very well, and he's free to invent as many as he >>>>>>>>>> wishes,
but nobody else is obliged to accept them.
It is always correct for any simulating termination analyzer to >>>>>>>>> stop simulating and reject any input that would otherwise prevent >>>>>>>>> its own termination.
Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of instructions) >>>>>> X described as <X> with input Y:
A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes the >>>>>> following mapping:
(<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly >>>>>> (<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed
directly
analyzer OUT-OF-HAND WITHOUT REVIEW.
As anyone can see HHH MUST REJECT ITS INPUT OR GET STUPIDLY STUCK IN >>>>> NON-TERMINATION. If people were not mindless robots they would have
immediately acknowledged this years ago.
domain.
I have proven that the directly executed DD and DD
emulated by HHH according to the semantics of the
x86 language have a different set of state changes
many hundreds of times for several years.
On 4/22/2025 7:42 AM, joes wrote:
Am Mon, 14 Apr 2025 17:48:36 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 4/14/2025 4:29 AM, joes wrote:Aha. Then why does it not simulate it and say that it halts?
Am Sun, 13 Apr 2025 16:00:43 -0500 schrieb olcott:Because it is not a liar and tells the truth for every input in its
On 4/13/2025 3:00 PM, dbush wrote:But why does it not return „I know this halts, but I can’t simulate >>>> it”?
On 4/13/2025 3:59 PM, olcott wrote:No stupid! Those freaking requirements are wrong and anchored in the >>>>> ignorance of rejecting the notion of a simulating termination
On 4/13/2025 3:54 AM, joes wrote:In other words, you agree that Linz and others are correct that no H >>>>>> exists that satisfies these requirements:
Am Fri, 11 Apr 2025 10:56:32 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 4/11/2025 3:24 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:Sure. Why doesn’t the STA simulate itself rejecting its input? >>>>>>> Because that is a STUPID idea and categorically impossible because >>>>>>> the outermost HHH sees its needs to stop simulating before any inner >>>>>>> HHH can possibly see this.
On 11/04/2025 08:57, Mikko wrote:
*Simulating termination analyzer Principle*No proof of this principle has been shown so its use is not >>>>>>>>>>> valid.No proof of Peano's axioms or Euclid's fifth postulate has been >>>>>>>>>> shown.
That doesn't mean we can't use them.
Mr Olcott can have his principle if he likes, but only by EITHER >>>>>>>>>> proving it (which, as you say, he has not yet done) OR by taking >>>>>>>>>> it as axiomatic, leaving the world of mainstream computer science >>>>>>>>>> behind him,
constructing his own computational 'geometry' so to speak, and >>>>>>>>>> abandoning any claim to having overturned the Halting Problem. >>>>>>>>>> Navel contemplation beckons.
Axioms are all very well, and he's free to invent as many as he >>>>>>>>>> wishes,
but nobody else is obliged to accept them.
It is always correct for any simulating termination analyzer to >>>>>>>>> stop simulating and reject any input that would otherwise prevent >>>>>>>>> its own termination.
Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of instructions) >>>>>> X described as <X> with input Y:
A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes the >>>>>> following mapping:
(<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly >>>>>> (<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed
directly
analyzer OUT-OF-HAND WITHOUT REVIEW.
As anyone can see HHH MUST REJECT ITS INPUT OR GET STUPIDLY STUCK IN >>>>> NON-TERMINATION. If people were not mindless robots they would have
immediately acknowledged this years ago.
domain.
I have proven that the directly executed DD and DD
emulated by HHH according to the semantics of the
x86 language have a different set of state changes
many hundreds of times for several years.
On 4/23/2025 3:59 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 22.apr.2025 om 21:24 schreef olcott:
On 4/22/2025 7:42 AM, joes wrote:
Am Mon, 14 Apr 2025 17:48:36 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 4/14/2025 4:29 AM, joes wrote:Aha. Then why does it not simulate it and say that it halts?
Am Sun, 13 Apr 2025 16:00:43 -0500 schrieb olcott:Because it is not a liar and tells the truth for every input in its
On 4/13/2025 3:00 PM, dbush wrote:But why does it not return „I know this halts, but I can’t simulate >>>>>> it”?
On 4/13/2025 3:59 PM, olcott wrote:No stupid! Those freaking requirements are wrong and anchored in the >>>>>>> ignorance of rejecting the notion of a simulating termination
On 4/13/2025 3:54 AM, joes wrote:In other words, you agree that Linz and others are correct that >>>>>>>> no H
Am Fri, 11 Apr 2025 10:56:32 -0500 schrieb olcott:HHH can possibly see this.
On 4/11/2025 3:24 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:Sure. Why doesn’t the STA simulate itself rejecting its input? >>>>>>>>> Because that is a STUPID idea and categorically impossible because >>>>>>>>> the outermost HHH sees its needs to stop simulating before any >>>>>>>>> inner
On 11/04/2025 08:57, Mikko wrote:
*Simulating termination analyzer Principle*No proof of this principle has been shown so its use is not >>>>>>>>>>>>> valid.No proof of Peano's axioms or Euclid's fifth postulate has been >>>>>>>>>>>> shown.
That doesn't mean we can't use them.
Mr Olcott can have his principle if he likes, but only by >>>>>>>>>>>> EITHER
proving it (which, as you say, he has not yet done) OR by >>>>>>>>>>>> taking
it as axiomatic, leaving the world of mainstream computer >>>>>>>>>>>> science
behind him,
constructing his own computational 'geometry' so to speak, and >>>>>>>>>>>> abandoning any claim to having overturned the Halting Problem. >>>>>>>>>>>> Navel contemplation beckons.
Axioms are all very well, and he's free to invent as many as he >>>>>>>>>>>> wishes,
but nobody else is obliged to accept them.
It is always correct for any simulating termination analyzer to >>>>>>>>>>> stop simulating and reject any input that would otherwise >>>>>>>>>>> prevent
its own termination.
exists that satisfies these requirements:
Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of
instructions)
X described as <X> with input Y:
A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that
computes the
following mapping:
(<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly >>>>>>>> (<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed >>>>>>>> directly
analyzer OUT-OF-HAND WITHOUT REVIEW.
As anyone can see HHH MUST REJECT ITS INPUT OR GET STUPIDLY STUCK IN >>>>>>> NON-TERMINATION. If people were not mindless robots they would have >>>>>>> immediately acknowledged this years ago.
domain.
I have proven that the directly executed DD and DD
emulated by HHH according to the semantics of the
x86 language have a different set of state changes
many hundreds of times for several years.
You did not prove it, you dreamed about it for many years, but you
failed to show the first state change were the simulation differs from
the simulation. You only showed that HHH failed to complete the
simulation.
_DD()
[00002133] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping
[00002134] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping
[00002136] 51 push ecx ; make space for local [00002137] 6833210000 push 00002133 ; push DD
[0000213c] e882f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DD)
[00002141] 83c404 add esp,+04
[00002144] 8945fc mov [ebp-04],eax
[00002147] 837dfc00 cmp dword [ebp-04],+00
[0000214b] 7402 jz 0000214f
[0000214d] ebfe jmp 0000214d
[0000214f] 8b45fc mov eax,[ebp-04]
[00002152] 8be5 mov esp,ebp
[00002154] 5d pop ebp
[00002155] c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0035) [00002155]
By merely knowing that HHH emulates DD until it
sees itself about to emulate DD a third time
(mathematical induction proof that DD is stuck in
recursive emulation) we can know that
The call to HHH(DD) from the directly executed DD returns.Yes, HHH fails to simulate itself up to the end.
The call to HHH(DD) from DD emulated by HHH cannot possibly return.
On 4/23/2025 12:23 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 23.apr.2025 om 17:53 schreef olcott:
On 4/23/2025 3:59 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 22.apr.2025 om 21:24 schreef olcott:
On 4/22/2025 7:42 AM, joes wrote:
Am Mon, 14 Apr 2025 17:48:36 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 4/14/2025 4:29 AM, joes wrote:Aha. Then why does it not simulate it and say that it halts?
Am Sun, 13 Apr 2025 16:00:43 -0500 schrieb olcott:Because it is not a liar and tells the truth for every input in its >>>>>>> domain.
On 4/13/2025 3:00 PM, dbush wrote:But why does it not return „I know this halts, but I can’t simulate
On 4/13/2025 3:59 PM, olcott wrote:No stupid! Those freaking requirements are wrong and anchored >>>>>>>>> in the
On 4/13/2025 3:54 AM, joes wrote:In other words, you agree that Linz and others are correct >>>>>>>>>> that no H
Am Fri, 11 Apr 2025 10:56:32 -0500 schrieb olcott:the outermost HHH sees its needs to stop simulating before >>>>>>>>>>> any inner
On 4/11/2025 3:24 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:Sure. Why doesn’t the STA simulate itself rejecting its input? >>>>>>>>>>> Because that is a STUPID idea and categorically impossible >>>>>>>>>>> because
On 11/04/2025 08:57, Mikko wrote:
*Simulating termination analyzer Principle*No proof of this principle has been shown so its use is not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valid.No proof of Peano's axioms or Euclid's fifth postulate has >>>>>>>>>>>>>> been
shown.
That doesn't mean we can't use them.
Mr Olcott can have his principle if he likes, but only by >>>>>>>>>>>>>> EITHER
proving it (which, as you say, he has not yet done) OR by >>>>>>>>>>>>>> taking
it as axiomatic, leaving the world of mainstream computer >>>>>>>>>>>>>> science
behind him,
constructing his own computational 'geometry' so to speak, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
abandoning any claim to having overturned the Halting >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Problem.
Navel contemplation beckons.
Axioms are all very well, and he's free to invent as many >>>>>>>>>>>>>> as he
wishes,
but nobody else is obliged to accept them.
It is always correct for any simulating termination
analyzer to
stop simulating and reject any input that would otherwise >>>>>>>>>>>>> prevent
its own termination.
HHH can possibly see this.
exists that satisfies these requirements:
Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of
instructions)
X described as <X> with input Y:
A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that
computes the
following mapping:
(<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed
directly
(<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed >>>>>>>>>> directly
ignorance of rejecting the notion of a simulating termination >>>>>>>>> analyzer OUT-OF-HAND WITHOUT REVIEW.
As anyone can see HHH MUST REJECT ITS INPUT OR GET STUPIDLY
STUCK IN
NON-TERMINATION. If people were not mindless robots they would >>>>>>>>> have
immediately acknowledged this years ago.
it”?
I have proven that the directly executed DD and DD
emulated by HHH according to the semantics of the
x86 language have a different set of state changes
many hundreds of times for several years.
You did not prove it, you dreamed about it for many years, but you
failed to show the first state change were the simulation differs
from the simulation. You only showed that HHH failed to complete the
simulation.
_DD()
[00002133] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping
[00002134] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping
[00002136] 51 push ecx ; make space for local
[00002137] 6833210000 push 00002133 ; push DD
[0000213c] e882f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DD)
[00002141] 83c404 add esp,+04
[00002144] 8945fc mov [ebp-04],eax
[00002147] 837dfc00 cmp dword [ebp-04],+00
[0000214b] 7402 jz 0000214f
[0000214d] ebfe jmp 0000214d
[0000214f] 8b45fc mov eax,[ebp-04]
[00002152] 8be5 mov esp,ebp
[00002154] 5d pop ebp
[00002155] c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0035) [00002155]
By merely knowing that HHH emulates DD until it
sees itself about to emulate DD a third time
(mathematical induction proof that DD is stuck in
recursive emulation) we can know that
We know that the simulating HHH fails to see that the recursion is finite
From the point of view of the HHH that is simulating DD
the recursion will never stop unless this HHH stops it.
On 4/23/2025 12:23 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 23.apr.2025 om 17:53 schreef olcott:
On 4/23/2025 3:59 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 22.apr.2025 om 21:24 schreef olcott:
On 4/22/2025 7:42 AM, joes wrote:
Am Mon, 14 Apr 2025 17:48:36 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 4/14/2025 4:29 AM, joes wrote:Aha. Then why does it not simulate it and say that it halts?
Am Sun, 13 Apr 2025 16:00:43 -0500 schrieb olcott:Because it is not a liar and tells the truth for every input in its >>>>>>> domain.
On 4/13/2025 3:00 PM, dbush wrote:But why does it not return „I know this halts, but I can’t simulate
On 4/13/2025 3:59 PM, olcott wrote:No stupid! Those freaking requirements are wrong and anchored >>>>>>>>> in the
On 4/13/2025 3:54 AM, joes wrote:In other words, you agree that Linz and others are correct >>>>>>>>>> that no H
Am Fri, 11 Apr 2025 10:56:32 -0500 schrieb olcott:the outermost HHH sees its needs to stop simulating before >>>>>>>>>>> any inner
On 4/11/2025 3:24 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:Sure. Why doesn’t the STA simulate itself rejecting its input? >>>>>>>>>>> Because that is a STUPID idea and categorically impossible >>>>>>>>>>> because
On 11/04/2025 08:57, Mikko wrote:
*Simulating termination analyzer Principle*No proof of this principle has been shown so its use is not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valid.No proof of Peano's axioms or Euclid's fifth postulate has >>>>>>>>>>>>>> been
shown.
That doesn't mean we can't use them.
Mr Olcott can have his principle if he likes, but only by >>>>>>>>>>>>>> EITHER
proving it (which, as you say, he has not yet done) OR by >>>>>>>>>>>>>> taking
it as axiomatic, leaving the world of mainstream computer >>>>>>>>>>>>>> science
behind him,
constructing his own computational 'geometry' so to speak, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
abandoning any claim to having overturned the Halting >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Problem.
Navel contemplation beckons.
Axioms are all very well, and he's free to invent as many >>>>>>>>>>>>>> as he
wishes,
but nobody else is obliged to accept them.
It is always correct for any simulating termination
analyzer to
stop simulating and reject any input that would otherwise >>>>>>>>>>>>> prevent
its own termination.
HHH can possibly see this.
exists that satisfies these requirements:
Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of
instructions)
X described as <X> with input Y:
A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that
computes the
following mapping:
(<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed
directly
(<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed >>>>>>>>>> directly
ignorance of rejecting the notion of a simulating termination >>>>>>>>> analyzer OUT-OF-HAND WITHOUT REVIEW.
As anyone can see HHH MUST REJECT ITS INPUT OR GET STUPIDLY
STUCK IN
NON-TERMINATION. If people were not mindless robots they would >>>>>>>>> have
immediately acknowledged this years ago.
it”?
I have proven that the directly executed DD and DD
emulated by HHH according to the semantics of the
x86 language have a different set of state changes
many hundreds of times for several years.
You did not prove it, you dreamed about it for many years, but you
failed to show the first state change were the simulation differs
from the simulation. You only showed that HHH failed to complete the
simulation.
_DD()
[00002133] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping
[00002134] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping
[00002136] 51 push ecx ; make space for local
[00002137] 6833210000 push 00002133 ; push DD
[0000213c] e882f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DD)
[00002141] 83c404 add esp,+04
[00002144] 8945fc mov [ebp-04],eax
[00002147] 837dfc00 cmp dword [ebp-04],+00
[0000214b] 7402 jz 0000214f
[0000214d] ebfe jmp 0000214d
[0000214f] 8b45fc mov eax,[ebp-04]
[00002152] 8be5 mov esp,ebp
[00002154] 5d pop ebp
[00002155] c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0035) [00002155]
By merely knowing that HHH emulates DD until it
sees itself about to emulate DD a third time
(mathematical induction proof that DD is stuck in
recursive emulation) we can know that
We know that the simulating HHH fails to see that the recursion is finite
From the point of view of the HHH that is simulating DD
the recursion will never stop unless this HHH stops it.
On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
I don't think that is the shell game. PO really /has/ an H...
(it's trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines
that P(P) *would* never stop running *unless* aborted.
But H determines (correctly) that D would not halt if it
were not halted. That much is a truism.
That you don't know software engineering well enough to
see this is less than no rebuttal at all.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 155:41:31 |
| Calls: | 10,383 |
| Files: | 14,054 |
| Messages: | 6,417,848 |