On 2/2/2024 5:16 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 01.feb.2024 om 15:11 schreef olcott:
>> On 2/1/2024 3:48 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 31.jan.2024 om 23:04 schreef olcott:
>>>> On 1/31/2024 1:58 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>> Op 31.jan.2024 om 18:16 schreef olcott:
>>>>>> On 1/31/2024 11:08 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>> Op 31.jan.2024 om 17:41 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>> On 1/31/2024 10:21 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Op 31.jan.2024 om 16:54 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/2024 7:04 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/24 01:56, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/30/2024 6:46 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/24 01:31, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have already been completely through your idea with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hundreds of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> posts on another forum with someone else before I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determined that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is nonsense using set theory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your idea is also nonsense. Maybe you two would be equals.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is to decide whether the execution
>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequence of a Turing machine/input pair is finite or infinite.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Close but no cigar. No TM can take another TM as input, it
>>>>>>>>>>>> can only take finite strings as input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is whether or not a finite string pair
>>>>>>>>>>>> (TM description and its input)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *specifies a finite sequence of configurations*
>>>>>>>>>>>> *specifies a finite sequence of configurations*
>>>>>>>>>>>> *specifies a finite sequence of configurations*
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is whether or not you get a finite
>>>>>>>>>>> sequence of configurations when you execute the finite string
>>>>>>>>>>> pair according to Turing Machine rules and no other rules.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *No that is a common misconception*
>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is actually about computing the mapping
>>>>>>>>>> from an input finite string pair such the the first element of
>>>>>>>>>> this pair species behavior. It is the behavior that this finite
>>>>>>>>>> string specifies that must be reported on.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When D does call H in recursive simulation such that D cannot
>>>>>>>>>> possibly stop running unless aborted the H is necessarily correct
>>>>>>>>>> to abort D and reject D as non-halting >
>>>>>>>>>> D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach the point in
>>>>>>>>>> its own execution trace where it does the opposite of whatever
>>>>>>>>>> value that H returns.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Olcott's H is of the Han type, because it aborts the simulation
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *PREMISE*
>>>>>>>> *When one understands that simulating termination analyzer H*
>>>>>>>> *is always correct to abort any simulation that cannot possibly*
>>>>>>>> *stop running unless aborted
>>>>>>> 'H is correct to abort' So it should be of the Han type. Thus
>>>>>>> Dan, derived from this Han, correctly simulated (Han(Dan,Dan)
>>>>>>> should simulate its input Dan, not its non-input Dss which does
>>>>>>> not stop running), does stop and it is incorrect to abort it. So,
>>>>>>> the premise causes a contradiction, therefore the premise is
>>>>>>> false. So, such a H does not exist.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now we get the non-existing D derived from this non-existing H.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 01 int D(ptr x)  // ptr is pointer to int function
>>>>>>>> 02 {
>>>>>>>> 03   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>>>>>>> 04   if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>> 05     HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>> 06   return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>> 07 }
>>>>>>>> 08
>>>>>>>> 09 void main()
>>>>>>>> 10 {
>>>>>>>> 11   H(D,D);
>>>>>>>> 12 }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *IS LOGICALLY ENTAILED FROM PREMISE*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The premise which is shown to be false. Which makes the following
>>>>>>> sentences vacuous.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All halt deciders must report on what the behavior of their
>>>>>> input would be. None are required to infinitely simulate
>>>>>> their input to correctly determine that their input would
>>>>>> never halt.
>>>>>
>>>>> Indeed. So Han(Dan,Dan) must report on Dan, which uses Han, which
>>>>> aborts
>>>>
>>>> I have spent far too many weeks on this convoluted bullshit Dennis Bush
>>>> mostly on another forum.
>>>>
>>>> There is one infinite set of H/D pairs where every H correctly
>>>> determines the halt status of its corresponding D every other
>>>> freaking thing else is a dishonest dodge away from the point.
>>>>
>>>> I spent a dozen years on the Dishonest dodges of Ben Bacarisse
>>>> before I stopped tolerating them from anyone.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Strange. Most people will understand that olcotts claim is false
>>> within a few days, but olcott does not even understand it after a
>>> dozen years. I am afraid he will need an infinite time to understand
>>> it. Probably a bug in the AI.
>>>
>>
>> Three PhD computer science professors agree.
>
> If true, I am very sorry for those professors.
> My son, working for Google, told me that the Google search engine is so
> strong, that for every false statement one can find a few professors
> that seem to defend it.

Does the halting problem place an actual limit on computation?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374806722_Does_the_halting_problem_place_an_actual_limit_on_computation

Since I independently came up with this same reasoning back in 2004
(as referenced in my paper) I understand how and why they are correct.
Even "Carol's question" was directed at me as Jack's question in 2004.

So far not a single person could ever show any actual error in my
reasoning all they ever have is the dogma that they really really
believe that I am wrong. They try to get away with using rhetoric
instead of reasoning. This only works on gullible fools.

Any question intentionally defined to have no correct
answer <is> an incorrect question.

Any decision problem intentionally defined to be unsatisfiable
is isomorphic to an incorrect question.

The inability to answer an incorrect question places
no actual limit on anyone or anything.

Professor Hehner did a beautiful in showing that the context
of who is asked a question changed the meaning of this question.

You can comprehend this or fail to comprehend this. Because it
is a self-evident truth correct rebuttals are impossible.

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer