You [dbush] continue to stupidly insist that int sum(int x, int y)
{return x + y; }
returns 7 for sum(3,2) because you incorrectly
understand how these things fundamentally work.
It is stupidly wrong to expect HHH(DD) report on
the direct execution of DD when you are not telling
it one damn thing about this direct execution.
Not just wrong persistently STUPIDLY WRONG !!!
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
On 4/15/2025 3:25 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-04-15 03:41:02 +0000, olcott said:
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.
Ignoring verified proofs does not meke them go away.
But you keep ignoring them anyway.
int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}
It is a verified fact that the input to HHH(DD) specifies
recursive simulation because DD defines a pathological
relationship with HHH.
It is flat out stupid to think that HHH should report on
behavior other than this specified behavior. Only people
that have zero depth of understanding would suggest this.
a function is computable if there exists an
algorithm that can do the job of the function,
i.e. given an input of the function domain it
can return the corresponding output.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function
*corresponding output to the input*
*corresponding output to the input*
*corresponding output to the input*
*corresponding output to the input*
Not freaking allowed to look at any damn thing
else besides the freaking input. Must compute whatever
mapping ACTUALLY EXISTS FROM THIS INPUT.
On 4/15/2025 4:00 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
[ .... ]
You [dbush] continue to stupidly insist that int sum(int x, int y)
{return x + y; }
returns 7 for sum(3,2) because you incorrectly
understand how these things fundamentally work.
That is clearly not the case. dbush has never asserted that, as far as I >> can remember.
It is stupidly wrong to expect HHH(DD) report on
the direct execution of DD when you are not telling
it one damn thing about this direct execution.
The DD in HHH(DD) _is_ the specification of the direct execution. HHH is >> incapable of following this specification.
That is the same as saying that tiny is specified to mean huge,
stupidly incorrect. It is moronic that people insist on ignoring
the pathological relationship that DD specifies that changes the
behavior of DD to make this behavior DIFFERENT THAN THE BEHAVIOR
OF THE DIRECT EXECUTION !!!
Not just wrong persistently STUPIDLY WRONG !!!
Not at all. The bulk of your posts over many years have been
persistently and stupidly wrong.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
It is moronic that people insist on ignoring
the pathological relationship that DD specifies that changes the
behavior of DD to make this behavior DIFFERENT THAN THE BEHAVIOR
OF THE DIRECT EXECUTION !!!
The problem with your argument is that partial simulation does
not define behavior, so the simulation by HHH doesn't actually
say what the final behavior of DD is, and when you talk about DD
correct simulated by HHH, that is just a LIE, as this HHH doesn't
do that, and to talk about a DIFFERENT program HHH, is just
invoking the fallacy of equivocation, because you do it in a way
that CHANGES the input, since to be a program in the first place,
it includes the code of the one HHH that it was defined to be
"pathological" to.
So, by doing so you just prove that you are nothing but a
pathological liar.
On 4/15/2025 8:03 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 16/04/2025 01:38, olcott wrote:
It is moronic that people insist on ignoring
the pathological relationship that DD specifies that changes the
behavior of DD to make this behavior DIFFERENT THAN THE BEHAVIOR
OF THE DIRECT EXECUTION !!!
It doesn't matter. It only matters whether it gets the answer right,
which it can't (if you are correctly modelling the problem correctly)
because the Halting Problem is essentially a trick problem for which
there's /no/ right answer. "A strange game", as Joshua said. "The only
winning move is not to play."
One other point - the people you're talking to are /not/ morons. They
are intelligent, educated people who are doing their best to help you
around your evident misunderstanding of the Halting Problem. You may
believe them to be mistaken, but to continue to treat them with
disdain is not the best way to retain your audience and suggests to
the world at large that you're a lightweight who never outgrew
adolescence.
Please, for your own sake, try growing up. Learn to treat your
interlocutors with a little common decency, and think about what
they're telling you. Truth is not a democracy, but when a lot of very
smart people tell you you're wrong and /no/body has come on board,
it's time to think long and hard about your position.
YOU ALL ARE ALL VERY STUPIDLY VERY WRONG
*corresponding output to the input*
*corresponding output to the input*
*corresponding output to the input*
*corresponding output to the input*
*corresponding output to the input*
sum(3,2) IS NOT THE SAME AS sum(5,2).
IT IS EITHER STUPID OR DISHONEST FOR YOU TO TRY TO
GET AWAY FOR CLAIMING THIS USING THE STRAW DECEPTION
INTENTIONALLY INCORRECT PARAPHRASE OF MY WORDS.
The question is whether a universal termination analyser can be
constructed, and the answer is that it can't.
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 13:29:18 +0100, Richard Heathfield wrote:
The question is whether a universal termination analyser can be
constructed, and the answer is that it can't.
Aren't you kind of putting the cart before the horse with such an
assertion?
Maybe the prior art you are basing that assertion on is wrong?
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 13:29:18 +0100, Richard Heathfield wrote:
The question is whether a universal termination analyser can be
constructed, and the answer is that it can't.
Aren't you kind of putting the cart before the horse with such an
assertion? Maybe the prior art you are basing that assertion on is wrong?
/Flibble
Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 13:29:18 +0100, Richard Heathfield wrote:
The question is whether a universal termination analyser can be
constructed, and the answer is that it can't.
Aren't you kind of putting the cart before the horse with such an
assertion? Maybe the prior art you are basing that assertion on is wrong?
You're speaking from ignorance of mathematics. The halting problem has
been unequivocally proven. It is a simple theorem, only slightly more complicated than 2 + 2 = 4.
We're not talking about "prior art", or anything like that. We're
talking rigorous mathematics. We're talking about absolute truth,
something that Peter Olcott does not understand. You don't need to join
him.
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 20:03:52 +0100, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 16/04/2025 19:09, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 13:29:18 +0100, Richard Heathfield wrote:
The question is whether a universal termination analyser can be
constructed, and the answer is that it can't.
Aren't you kind of putting the cart before the horse with such an
assertion? Maybe the prior art you are basing that assertion on is
wrong?
You're speaking from ignorance of mathematics. The halting problem has
been unequivocally proven. It is a simple theorem, only slightly more
complicated than 2 + 2 = 4.
We're not talking about "prior art", or anything like that. We're
talking rigorous mathematics. We're talking about absolute truth,
something that Peter Olcott does not understand. You don't need to
join him.
Indeed.
For the benefit of 'Mr Flibble'(!), the proof is a reductio proof that
works as follows.
The question before us is whether a universal termination analyser (A)
can be constructed.
A takes two inputs - a program P, and data D - and answers the question
'given D as its input, does P halt?' We will notate this as A(P,D).
How it works - parsing the source code, executing the program like a
debugger, casting runes, whatever - is irrelevant, as long as it works,
/no matter what program it is given/.
Alan Turing reasoned along these lines:
1) We assume that A /can/ be built.
2) We arrange A so that if A(P,D) determines that P(D) halts, it enters
an infinite loop. If A(P,D) determines that P(D) doesn't halt, however,
it halts.
3) We now run A(A,A). That is, we feed A with itself as the program to
run and itself as the data to use, and we ask it whether A(A) will halt.
4) So, /does/ A(A) halt? Yes, but only if it doesn't.
Does A(A) enter an infinite loop? Yes, but only if it doesn't.
A is in a bind because it cannot settle on either answer.
This is an absurd conclusion, so a premise must be at fault. But we only
have one premise: "We assume that A /can/ be built." So we must conclude
that it can't.
QED, reductio ad absurdum.
If Mr Flibble would like to point out the flaw in the reasoning, he is
more than welcome to try.
You are ignoring the elephant in the room:
the category error associated
with pathological input. One simply has to add a third halting result of "pathological input" and we are fine.
On 16/04/2025 19:09, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 13:29:18 +0100, Richard Heathfield wrote:
The question is whether a universal termination analyser can be
constructed, and the answer is that it can't.
Aren't you kind of putting the cart before the horse with such an
assertion? Maybe the prior art you are basing that assertion on is
wrong?
You're speaking from ignorance of mathematics. The halting problem has
been unequivocally proven. It is a simple theorem, only slightly more
complicated than 2 + 2 = 4.
We're not talking about "prior art", or anything like that. We're
talking rigorous mathematics. We're talking about absolute truth,
something that Peter Olcott does not understand. You don't need to
join him.
Indeed.
For the benefit of 'Mr Flibble'(!), the proof is a reductio proof that
works as follows.
The question before us is whether a universal termination analyser (A)
can be constructed.
A takes two inputs - a program P, and data D - and answers the question 'given D as its input, does P halt?' We will notate this as A(P,D).
How it works - parsing the source code, executing the program like a debugger, casting runes, whatever - is irrelevant, as long as it works,
/no matter what program it is given/.
Alan Turing reasoned along these lines:
1) We assume that A /can/ be built.
2) We arrange A so that if A(P,D) determines that P(D) halts, it enters
an infinite loop. If A(P,D) determines that P(D) doesn't halt, however,
it halts.
3) We now run A(A,A). That is, we feed A with itself as the program to
run and itself as the data to use, and we ask it whether A(A) will halt.
4) So, /does/ A(A) halt? Yes, but only if it doesn't.
Does A(A) enter an infinite loop? Yes, but only if it doesn't.
A is in a bind because it cannot settle on either answer.
This is an absurd conclusion, so a premise must be at fault. But we only
have one premise: "We assume that A /can/ be built." So we must conclude
that it can't.
QED, reductio ad absurdum.
If Mr Flibble would like to point out the flaw in the reasoning, he is
more than welcome to try.
On 16/04/2025 20:42, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 20:03:52 +0100, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 16/04/2025 19:09, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 13:29:18 +0100, Richard Heathfield wrote:
The question is whether a universal termination analyser can be
constructed, and the answer is that it can't.
Aren't you kind of putting the cart before the horse with such an
assertion? Maybe the prior art you are basing that assertion on is
wrong?
You're speaking from ignorance of mathematics. The halting problem
has been unequivocally proven. It is a simple theorem, only slightly
more complicated than 2 + 2 = 4.
We're not talking about "prior art", or anything like that. We're
talking rigorous mathematics. We're talking about absolute truth,
something that Peter Olcott does not understand. You don't need to
join him.
Indeed.
For the benefit of 'Mr Flibble'(!), the proof is a reductio proof that
works as follows.
The question before us is whether a universal termination analyser (A)
can be constructed.
A takes two inputs - a program P, and data D - and answers the
question 'given D as its input, does P halt?' We will notate this as
A(P,D).
How it works - parsing the source code, executing the program like a
debugger, casting runes, whatever - is irrelevant, as long as it
works, /no matter what program it is given/.
Alan Turing reasoned along these lines:
1) We assume that A /can/ be built.
2) We arrange A so that if A(P,D) determines that P(D) halts, it
enters an infinite loop. If A(P,D) determines that P(D) doesn't halt,
however, it halts.
3) We now run A(A,A). That is, we feed A with itself as the program to
run and itself as the data to use, and we ask it whether A(A) will
halt.
4) So, /does/ A(A) halt? Yes, but only if it doesn't.
Does A(A) enter an infinite loop? Yes, but only if it doesn't.
A is in a bind because it cannot settle on either answer.
This is an absurd conclusion, so a premise must be at fault. But we
only have one premise: "We assume that A /can/ be built." So we must
conclude that it can't.
QED, reductio ad absurdum.
If Mr Flibble would like to point out the flaw in the reasoning, he is
more than welcome to try.
You are ignoring the elephant in the room:
I see no elephants.
the category error associated with pathological input. One simply has
to add a third halting result of "pathological input" and we are fine.
That's just another way of saying that the universal termination
analyser as specified (determining whether P(D) does or does not
eventually halt) can't be written. If it can't determine whether P(D)
halts, no matter how pathological, it isn't universal.
On 16/04/2025 21:10, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 20:56:13 +0100, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 16/04/2025 20:42, Mr Flibble wrote:
<snip>
the category error associated with pathological input. One simply
has to add a third halting result of "pathological input" and we are
fine.
That's just another way of saying that the universal termination
analyser as specified (determining whether P(D) does or does not
eventually halt) can't be written. If it can't determine whether P(D)
halts, no matter how pathological, it isn't universal.
You forget that I have already solved this problem:
You forget that Turing has already proved otherwise.
<snip>
Obviously my idea necessitates extending the definition of a halt
decider:
1) Decider decision is HALTS if input halts.
2) Decider decision is NON-HALTING if input does not halt.
3) Decider rejects pathological input as invalid by signaling sNaP.
And equally obviously you have answered a different question. The
Halting Problem requires a universal termination analyser that correctly classifies all P(D) as halting or non-halting, and those are your only choices. You don't have a solution to the Halting Problem; you have
solved the Flibble Problem.
Thoughts? I am probably missing something obvious as my idea appears
to refute [Strachey 1965] and associated HP proofs which great minds
have mulled over for decades.
What you are missing is a program that meets the spec. Yeah, that's
pretty obvious.
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 20:56:13 +0100, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 16/04/2025 20:42, Mr Flibble wrote:
the category error associated with pathological input. One simply has
to add a third halting result of "pathological input" and we are fine.
That's just another way of saying that the universal termination
analyser as specified (determining whether P(D) does or does not
eventually halt) can't be written. If it can't determine whether P(D)
halts, no matter how pathological, it isn't universal.
You forget that I have already solved this problem:
Obviously my idea necessitates extending the definition of a halt
decider:
1) Decider decision is HALTS if input halts.
2) Decider decision is NON-HALTING if input does not halt.
3) Decider rejects pathological input as invalid by signaling sNaP.
Thoughts? I am probably missing something obvious as my idea
appears to refute [Strachey 1965] and associated HP proofs which
great minds have mulled over for decades.
I, aka Mr Flibble, have uniquely identified this category error and have
thus solved the halting problem
On 4/15/2025 3:54 PM, dbush wrote:
On 4/15/2025 4:44 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/15/2025 2:03 PM, dbush wrote:
On 4/15/2025 2:50 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/15/2025 11:05 AM, dbush wrote:
On 4/15/2025 11:29 AM, olcott wrote:
On 4/15/2025 3:25 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-04-15 03:41:02 +0000, olcott said:
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.
Ignoring verified proofs does not meke them go away.
But you keep ignoring them anyway.
int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}
It is a verified fact that the input to HHH(DD) specifies
An algorithm which halts when executed directly.
It is flat out stupid to think that HHH should report on
behavior other than this specified behavior. Only people
that have zero depth of understanding would suggest this.
No, it is flat-out stupid to think that something that claims to
be a halt decider / termination analyzer should report on anything >>>>>> other than the mapping which is the halting function:
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
a function is computable if there exists an
algorithm that can do the job of the function,
i.e. given an input of the function domain it
can return the corresponding output.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function
And the mathematical halting function is not a computable
function, as proven by Linz and others
*corresponding output to the input*
*corresponding output to the input*
*corresponding output to the input*
*corresponding output to the input*
Not freaking allowed to look at any damn thing
else besides the freaking input. Must compute whatever
mapping ACTUALLY EXISTS FROM THIS INPUT.
So the algorithm HHH that you've implemented computes *some*
computable function, but it does not compute the halting function
as it is not computable.
*corresponding output to the input*
*corresponding output to the input*
*corresponding output to the input*
*corresponding output to the input*
*corresponding output to the input*
Knucklehead !!!
That doesn't refute anything I said.
You continue to stupidly insist that
int sum(int x, int y) {return x + y; }
returns 7 for sum(3,2) because you incorrectly
understand how these things fundamentally work.
Strawman. (3,2) is not the same as (5,2), but (DD) is the same as (DD).
sum(3,2) IS NOT THE SAME AS sum(5,2).
IT IS EITHER STUPID OR DISHONEST FOR YOU TO TRY TO
GET AWAY FOR CLAIMING THIS USING THE STRAW DECEPTION
INTENTIONALLY INCORRECT PARAPHRASE OF MY WORDS.
It is stupidly wrong to expect HHH(DD) report on
the direct execution of DD when you are not telling
it one damn thing about this direct execution.
False. It is a prerequisite that (DD) is a *complete description* of
the algorithm DD, i.e. the function DD, the function HHH, and
everything function HHH calls down to the OS level.
The fact that UTM(DD) exactly replicates the behavior of direct
execution shows that it's possible, it's just that algorithm HHH
doesn't do it.
On 4/16/2025 5:24 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 16/04/2025 22:01, Mr Flibble wrote:
I, aka Mr Flibble, have uniquely identified this category
error and have
thus solved the halting problem
No, Mr Flibble, you have solved the Mr Flibble Problem. Well
done! You may award yourself whatever cash prize you can find
in your piggy bank. Well done!
And now you'd hurry back to using all those naughty words while
your mummy's still out at the shops.
Flibble and I did not solve the Halting Problem
instead Flibble, computer science professor
Eric Hehner PhD, and I agree that the halting
problem is a "category error" (Flibble's words).
On 4/16/2025 5:24 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 16/04/2025 22:01, Mr Flibble wrote:
I, aka Mr Flibble, have uniquely identified this category error and have >>> thus solved the halting problem
No, Mr Flibble, you have solved the Mr Flibble Problem. Well done! You
may award yourself whatever cash prize you can find in your piggy
bank. Well done!
And now you'd hurry back to using all those naughty words while your
mummy's still out at the shops.
Flibble and I did not solve the Halting Problem
instead Flibble, computer science professor
Eric Hehner PhD, and I agree that the halting
problem is a "category error" (Flibble's words).
(see page 2 and references)
Yes, then we three agree including PhD computer science professor
Eric Hehner PhD (see page 2 and references). publication/369971402_Simulating_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
*Here is one of his best papers*
Objective and Subjective Specifications https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
(6) Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this question?
The analysis of the above is the key insight into his whole paper.
On 4/17/2025 12:51 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 17/04/2025 05:05, olcott wrote:
On 4/16/2025 5:24 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 16/04/2025 22:01, Mr Flibble wrote:
I, aka Mr Flibble, have uniquely identified this category error and
have
thus solved the halting problem
No, Mr Flibble, you have solved the Mr Flibble Problem. Well done!
You may award yourself whatever cash prize you can find in your
piggy bank. Well done!
And now you'd hurry back to using all those naughty words while your
mummy's still out at the shops.
Flibble and I did not solve the Halting Problem
Well done. That's the first step on the road to recovery.
instead Flibble, computer science professor
Eric Hehner PhD, and I agree that the halting
problem is a "category error" (Flibble's words).
If you think it helps, agree all you like with whomever you like.
If humans don't get a better understanding of
how truth works through corrections to the mistakes
of logic, computation, and reasoning The Earth may
be annihilated for something as stupid as a land grab.
On 16/04/2025 22:01, Mr Flibble wrote:
I, aka Mr Flibble, have uniquely identified this category error and
have thus solved the halting problem
No, Mr Flibble, you have solved the Mr Flibble Problem. Well done! You
may award yourself whatever cash prize you can find in your piggy bank.
Well done!
And now you'd hurry back to using all those naughty words while your
mummy's still out at the shops.
On 4/18/2025 8:27 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 23:24:22 +0100, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 16/04/2025 22:01, Mr Flibble wrote:
I, aka Mr Flibble, have uniquely identified this category error and
have thus solved the halting problem
No, Mr Flibble, you have solved the Mr Flibble Problem. Well done! You
may award yourself whatever cash prize you can find in your piggy bank.
Well done!
And now you'd hurry back to using all those naughty words while your
mummy's still out at the shops.
Partial deciders are a thing,
Yes they are and termination analyzers only need
be correct on at least one input.
dear, and in the case of a simulating halt
decider with finite resources repeated state can be recognised for a
useful subset of problems including the ability to recognise pathological
input (halting problem category error manifestation). A simulating halt
Yes.
decider with the mythical infinite resources that the halt decider that
your proofs are predicated on also possesses is an unpartial decider also
with the ability to recognise pathological input (halting problem
category
error manifestation).
/Flibble
typedef void (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}
int main()
{
HHH(DD);
} SIMULATED DD
It is correct for HHH to reject its input DD as
non-terminating on the basis that DD SIMULATED BY
HHH and HHH emulating itself emulating DD prove a
repeating pattern preventing the
// dishonest people tried to change this subject for three years\
// dishonest people tried to change this subject for three years
// dishonest people tried to change this subject for three years\
SIMULATED DD
SIMULATED DD
SIMULATED DD
SIMULATED DD
SIMULATED DD
From ever reaching its own final halt state.
The above refutes the conventional Halting Problem proof.
The simulating halt decider / termination analyzer is my idea.
Flibble's signalling halt decider is also very useful
because it looks at both of two options.
Computer Science professor Eric Hehner independently derived
the prequel to a simulating halt decider (see quote below)
[5] E C R Hehner. Problems with the Halting Problem, COMPUTING2011
Symposium on 75 years of Turing Machine and Lambda-Calculus, Karlsruhe Germany, invited, 2011 October 20-21; Advances in Computer Science and Engineering v.10 n.1 p.31-60, 2013
*Professor Hehner recognized this repeating process before I did*
From a programmer's point of view, if we apply an
interpreter to a program text that includes a call
to that same interpreter with that same text as
argument, then we have an infinite loop. A halting
program has some of the same character as an interpreter:
it applies to texts through abstract interpretation.
Unsurprisingly, if we apply a halting program to a program
text that includes a call to that same halting program with
that same text as argument, then we have an infinite loop.
(Hehner:2011:15) https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf
On 4/17/2025 12:51 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:...
On 17/04/2025 05:05, olcott wrote:
On 4/16/2025 5:24 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 16/04/2025 22:01, Mr Flibble wrote:
I, aka Mr Flibble, have uniquely identified this category error and have >>>>> thus solved the halting problem
No, Mr Flibble, you have solved the Mr Flibble Problem. Well done! You >>>> may award yourself whatever cash prize you can find in your piggy bank. >>>> Well done!
And now you'd hurry back to using all those naughty words while your
mummy's still out at the shops.
Flibble and I did not solve the Halting Problem
Well done. That's the first step on the road to recovery.
instead Flibble, computer science professor
Eric Hehner PhD, and I agree that the halting
problem is a "category error" (Flibble's words).
If you think it helps, agree all you like with whomever you like.
If humans don't get a better understanding of
how truth works through corrections to the mistakes
of logic, computation, and reasoning
On 4/18/2025 8:27 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 23:24:22 +0100, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 16/04/2025 22:01, Mr Flibble wrote:
I, aka Mr Flibble, have uniquely identified this category error and
have thus solved the halting problem
No, Mr Flibble, you have solved the Mr Flibble Problem. Well done! You
may award yourself whatever cash prize you can find in your piggy bank.
Well done!
And now you'd hurry back to using all those naughty words while your
mummy's still out at the shops.
Partial deciders are a thing,
Yes they are and termination analyzers only need
be correct on at least one input.
On 4/18/2025 8:27 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 23:24:22 +0100, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 16/04/2025 22:01, Mr Flibble wrote:
I, aka Mr Flibble, have uniquely identified this category error and
have thus solved the halting problem
No, Mr Flibble, you have solved the Mr Flibble Problem. Well done! You
may award yourself whatever cash prize you can find in your piggy bank.
Well done!
And now you'd hurry back to using all those naughty words while your
mummy's still out at the shops.
Partial deciders are a thing,
Yes they are and termination analyzers only need
be correct on at least one input.
dear, and in the case of a simulating halt
decider with finite resources repeated state can be recognised for a
useful subset of problems including the ability to recognise pathological
input (halting problem category error manifestation). A simulating halt
Yes.
decider with the mythical infinite resources that the halt decider that
your proofs are predicated on also possesses is an unpartial decider also
with the ability to recognise pathological input (halting problem
category
error manifestation).
/Flibble
typedef void (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}
int main()
{
HHH(DD);
} SIMULATED DD
It is correct for HHH to reject its input DD as
non-terminating on the basis that DD SIMULATED BY
HHH and HHH emulating itself emulating DD prove a
repeating pattern preventing the
// dishonest people tried to change this subject for three years
// dishonest people tried to change this subject for three years
// dishonest people tried to change this subject for three years
SIMULATED DD
SIMULATED DD
SIMULATED DD
SIMULATED DD
SIMULATED DD
From ever reaching its own final halt state.
The above refutes the conventional Halting Problem proof.
The simulating halt decider / termination analyzer is my idea.
On 4/19/2025 2:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-04-18 16:19:23 +0000, olcott said:
On 4/18/2025 8:27 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 23:24:22 +0100, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 16/04/2025 22:01, Mr Flibble wrote:
I, aka Mr Flibble, have uniquely identified this category error and >>>>>> have thus solved the halting problem
No, Mr Flibble, you have solved the Mr Flibble Problem. Well done! You >>>>> may award yourself whatever cash prize you can find in your piggy
bank.
Well done!
And now you'd hurry back to using all those naughty words while your >>>>> mummy's still out at the shops.
Partial deciders are a thing,
Yes they are and termination analyzers only need
be correct on at least one input.
Even in situations where an analyzer cannot determine the right answer
it must not give the wrong answer. Not halting is OK, and so is to say
that the answer cannot be determined.
Cases of semantically invalid inputs must be rejected
as erroneous.
On 4/19/2025 2:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-04-18 16:19:23 +0000, olcott said:
On 4/18/2025 8:27 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 23:24:22 +0100, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 16/04/2025 22:01, Mr Flibble wrote:
I, aka Mr Flibble, have uniquely identified this category error and >>>>>> have thus solved the halting problem
No, Mr Flibble, you have solved the Mr Flibble Problem. Well done! You >>>>> may award yourself whatever cash prize you can find in your piggy bank. >>>>> Well done!
And now you'd hurry back to using all those naughty words while your >>>>> mummy's still out at the shops.
Partial deciders are a thing,
Yes they are and termination analyzers only need
be correct on at least one input.
Even in situations where an analyzer cannot determine the right answer
it must not give the wrong answer. Not halting is OK, and so is to say
that the answer cannot be determined.
Cases of semantically invalid inputs must be rejected
as erroneous.
On 4/21/2025 3:53 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-04-20 05:14:08 +0000, olcott said:
On 4/19/2025 2:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-04-18 16:19:23 +0000, olcott said:
On 4/18/2025 8:27 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 23:24:22 +0100, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 16/04/2025 22:01, Mr Flibble wrote:
I, aka Mr Flibble, have uniquely identified this category error and >>>>>>>> have thus solved the halting problem
No, Mr Flibble, you have solved the Mr Flibble Problem. Well
done! You
may award yourself whatever cash prize you can find in your piggy >>>>>>> bank.
Well done!
And now you'd hurry back to using all those naughty words while your >>>>>>> mummy's still out at the shops.
Partial deciders are a thing,
Yes they are and termination analyzers only need
be correct on at least one input.
Even in situations where an analyzer cannot determine the right answer >>>> it must not give the wrong answer. Not halting is OK, and so is to say >>>> that the answer cannot be determined.
Cases of semantically invalid inputs must be rejected
as erroneous.
Every syntactically valid input describes a computation that either
halts or does not halt and therefore is always semantically valid.
A halt decider cannot reject any input.
If you run into a self-contradictory expression and
do not reject it as semantically invalid you are stupidly wrong.
If the otherwise brilliant Tarski did not begin
by stupidly assuming that a falsehood is true
he would not have made his stupid Undefinability
theorem mistake.
Truth is a necessary consequence of applying the truth
preserving operation of semantic entailment to the set
of basic facts (cannot be derived from other facts)
expressed in language.
Copyright 2025 PL Olcott
The requirement to give the
correct answer applies only to syntactically valid inputs. Otherwise
it need not halt but if it does it is free to give any answer.
On 4/15/2025 2:03 PM, dbush wrote:What else is it missing that the processor uses to execute it?
On 4/15/2025 2:50 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/15/2025 11:05 AM, dbush wrote:
On 4/15/2025 11:29 AM, olcott wrote:
You continue to stupidly insist that int sum(int x, int y) {return x +That doesn't refute anything I said.*corresponding output to the input**corresponding output to the input*So the algorithm HHH that you've implemented computes *some*
Not freaking allowed to look at any damn thing else besides the
freaking input. Must compute whatever mapping ACTUALLY EXISTS FROM
THIS INPUT.
computable function, but it does not compute the halting function as
it is not computable.
y; }
returns 7 for sum(3,2) because you incorrectly understand how these
things fundamentally work.
It is stupidly wrong to expect HHH(DD) report on the direct execution of
DD when you are not telling it one damn thing about this direct
execution.
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 23:24:22 +0100, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 16/04/2025 22:01, Mr Flibble wrote:
I, aka Mr Flibble, have uniquely identified this category error and
have thus solved the halting problem
No, Mr Flibble, you have solved the Mr Flibble Problem. Well done! You
may award yourself whatever cash prize you can find in your piggy bank.
Well done!
And now you'd hurry back to using all those naughty words while your
mummy's still out at the shops.
Partial deciders are a thing
and in the case of a simulating halt
decider with finite resources repeated state can be recognised for a
useful subset of problems
including the ability to recognise pathological
input (halting problem category error manifestation).
A simulating halt
decider with the mythical infinite resources that the halt decider that
your proofs are predicated on also possesses is an unpartial decider also with the ability to recognise pathological input (halting problem category error manifestation).
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 49:12:54 |
| Calls: | 10,397 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 14,067 |
| Messages: | 6,417,291 |
| Posted today: | 1 |