Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- never reaches its halt state ---natural number mapping

On 8/11/24 7:58 AM, olcott wrote:

On 8/11/2024 5:45 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 10.aug.2024 om 21:05 schreef olcott:

On 8/10/2024 1:56 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 10.aug.2024 om 20:41 schreef olcott:

On 8/10/2024 1:35 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

>
No evidence for these claims. We know that a simulation of a halting program is correct only when it reaches the halt state,

>
void Infinite_Recursion()
{
   Infinite_Recursion();
}
>
void Infinite_Loop()
{
   HERE: goto HERE;
}
>
You seem to be an ignoramus. Ordinary ignorance can be corrected.

>
Completely irrelevant. There is no infinite loop in HHH because HHH aborts after N recursions, not after an Infinite_Recursion.

>
Thus you already knew that your statement was false before you
said it. Infinite_Loop() need not be emulated to non-existent
completion before HHH recognizes its infinite behavior pattern.
>
Why say things that you know are false?
>

>
Irrelevant text about olcott dreams of a non-halting simulation ignored.
>
void Finite_Recursion (int N) {
   if (N > 0) Finite_Recursion (N - 1);
}
>
This is not an infinite recursion.
>

It is the dishonest dodge of changing the subject
using the strawman deception (error of reasoning)
to form a rebuttal to something other than what I said.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
 If you insist on the strawman deception then that
objectively makes you a deceiver.
  void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
 This above code is the subject matter. The slightest change
of subject away from the above code is an intentional error
of reasoning.

The YOUR subject matter is off topic for the topic you are trying to talk about, as the code of HHH is most definitely part of the discussion, as it is part of the code of DDD to be decided on.
You elsewere just admitted that your input isn't of the right type of things to be halt decided on, as Computation theoryu in General, and the Halting Problem in particular, are about PROGRAMS, (and subprograms) not "C Functions" when you exclude the code they call.

 

Olcott's own trace showed that HHH halts. So, it does not have infinite behaviour. It has an end. Further, this trace showed that the simulation failed to reach that end. That does not show infinite behaviour, but a failed simulation.
Dreams are no substitute for facts.
>
Olcott has a circular reasoning.
1) The simulation does not reach the end, so there must be infinite behaviour.

 *The behavior of the input only has to match this criteria*
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
     If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
     until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
     stop running unless aborted then
 Professor Sipser is the best selling author of Theory of Computation textbooks and has written many papers on the subject

And you can't do a correct simulation of an input you don't have all of, so unless you include the ACTUAL CODE of HHH for HHH to use, it can't be correct.
Sorry, you just don't understand what he is talking about.
Remember, the input D is a description of a TURING MACHINE, which is the equivalent to a FULL PROGRAM, not a partial program that omits some of the algorithm it uses.

 

2) There is infinite behaviour, so the simulation must abort and must be correct.
He has no evidence for it, neither for 1, nor for 2, but he uses 1 as evidence for 2 and 2 as evidence for 1.

 It is a tautology.

Nope. Just your stupidity.

 

The simple facts are that the simulation is incorrect, because it failed to reach the end. The end is there, as shown by direct execution, by the simulation by another simulator (such as HHH1) and by inspection of the code and of the trace. So, there is plenty of evidence that there is an end.
Olcott prefers to ignore all the evidence, because he really, really wants his claims to be true, so he keeps repeating them, without any evidence. But repetition does not make things true.
That is something he probably just does not want to know.