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

On 4/11/25 11:56 AM, olcott wrote:

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.

>
Wweellll...
>
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.
 The only rebuttal to this is to stupidly reject the notion
that all deciders must always halt.
 

But it requires that HHH to correctly determine that the input would never terminate.
The problem is that try to strawman what that input represents, and how to determine its behavior.
If HHH is a "Halt Decider", then BY THE DEFINITION of a Halt Decider, "a Program that is to determine if the program and input described by its input will halt", so the input first must represent A PROGRAM, which is the COMPLETE listing of the instructions that the program will use.
This means that to submit DDD as its input, you need to include ALL of teh code it uses, which includes the code of the HHH that it calls and everything that it calls.
Also, the DEFINITION of the behavior of a program is what that prgram does when it is executed, which can also be determined by a "Correct Simulation", but the definition of such a simulation is one that doesn't stop before getting to the end, and thus WILL BE infinite in length if the input is non-halting.
By these definitions, your decide has NOT correctly rejected the input, because the code of your decider *DOES* abort it simulation, and thus so does the copy of it called by the input program, and thus the input program WILL HALT when we look at the FULL behavior of it, something your decider doesn't see because it stopped its simulation, we see that its copy of the decider returns 0 to it, so it halts.
The fact that a decider MUST halt, doesn't mean its decision to halt was based on correct logic. This has been the sort of root error in all you logic, that you assume because to meet one requirement you must do one thing, that must be the correct action for all your requirements, because you just don't undetstand how truth, logic, or even programming works.
Sorry, you are just showing that your mind lives in the land of make believe where the Truth-Fairy makes all your assumptions true by waving her magic wand. It shows that you are just an ignorant and stupid pathological liar that just doesn't understand what he is talking about enough to see the fundamental errors in your statements, and you just refuse (or are just mentally incapable) to learn those fundamentals, in part because you have brainwashed yourself into thinking that learning the truth will brainwash you.