Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT

On 2025-06-28 13:51:21 +0000, olcott said:

On 6/28/2025 6:56 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-06-27 14:26:41 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 6/27/2025 1:42 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-06-27 04:21:01 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 6/26/2025 5:20 AM, Mikko wrote:>>>

In computer science the only measure of non-halting is the
possibility to execute an unlimited number of steps without
halting. An execution of a limited number of steps does not
count as non-haltign.

 Halting means reaching a final halt state.

 And non-halting means unlimited execution.

 Not at all. The measure has always been can't possibly reach
final halt state.

 In Post's simplified version, which is the most commonly used one,
a computation halts when there is no applicable rule to specify
the next action.

 It is best to use the standard measure of halting
as reaching a final halt state.

If you use Turing's original form of Turing maches then it is best to
use Turing's definition of halting. If you are using some usual form
then the usual criterion that halting means inability to contimue.
Otherwise you get the paradox that a computation cannot be continued
but it has not halted, either.

If we don't do this then we get psychotic ideas like Richard's that
we cannot know that a computation does not halt until after we
simulate it forever.

It is a sin to lie about other people.
Anyway, you don't know that a computation does not halt unless you
can prove it. There is no method that can find a proof in all cases
but that doesn't prevent from finding a proof for some non-halting
cases.
--
Mikko