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

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:

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?
>

>
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].
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer