Re: DDD simulated by HHH cannot possibly halt (Halting Problem)

On 4/13/2025 5:08 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 13/04/2025 09:54, 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:

>

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.
>

*Simulating termination analyzer Principle*
It is always correct for any simulating termination analyzer to stop
simulating and reject any input that would otherwise prevent its own
termination.

Sure. Why doesn’t the STA simulate itself rejecting its input?

 

The test-program and the program-under-test are not the same
program. The question is: Can DD simulated by HHH possibly
reach its own final halt state?

Or why doesn't it save itself a huge amount of code and simply return 1 for all inputs?
 

Because that is a woefully stupid idea?
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer