Re: HHH(DD) --- COMPUTE ACTUAL MAPPING FROM INPUT TO OUTPUT --- Ignoramus !!!

On 5/4/25 1:50 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/3/2025 2:50 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-05-03 01:14:10 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 5/2/2025 4:03 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-04-30 15:28:33 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 4/29/2025 4:49 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-04-28 15:52:13 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 4/28/2025 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-04-16 17:36:31 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 4/16/2025 7:29 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 16/04/2025 12:40, olcott wrote:

sum(3,2) IS NOT THE SAME AS sum(5,2).
IT IS EITHER STUPID OR DISHONEST FOR YOU TO TRY TO
GET AWAY FOR CLAIMING THIS USING THE STRAW DECEPTION
INTENTIONALLY INCORRECT PARAPHRASE OF MY WORDS.

>
Whether sum(3,2) is or is not the same as sum(5,2) is not the question. The question is whether a universal termination analyser can be constructed, and the answer is that it can't.
>
This has been rigorously proved. If you want to overturn the proof you've got your work cut out to persuade anyone to listen, not least because anyone who tries to enter into a dialogue with you is met with contempt and scorn.
>
The proof stands.
>

>
*corresponding output to the input*
*corresponding output to the input*
*corresponding output to the input*
*corresponding output to the input*
*corresponding output to the input*
>
Not freaking allowed to look at any damn thing
else besides the freaking input. Must compute whatever
mapping ACTUALLY EXISTS FROM THIS INPUT.

>
A halt decider is is not allowed to compute "whatever" mapping. It is
required to compute one specific mapping: to "no" if the computation
described by the input can be continesd forever without halting, to
"no" otherwise.

>
It must do this by applying the finite string transformation
rules specified by the x86 language to the input to HHH(DD).

>
No, it needn't. A halt decider cannot do other than certain finite string
operations. No relation to x86 language is required.
>

This DOES NOT DERIVE THE BEHAVIOR OF THE DIRECTLY EXECUTED DD.

>
Whether the execution is "direct" or otherwise is irrelevant. A computation
either halts or not. A halt decider must just tell whether the somputation
halts. It is true that no Turing machine can determine this about every
computation, i.e., no Turing machine is a halt decider.
>

It DOES DERIVE DD EMULATED BY HHH AND ALSO DERIVES THE RECURSIVE
EMULATION OF HHH EMULATING ITSELF EMULATING DD.

>
Which are not mentioned in the halting problem.

>
When understand rather than simply ignore the HHH/DD
example it can be seen that every conventional halting
problem proof suffers the same fate.

>
That you (or some other people) don't understand the proof is not fatal.
>

The contradictory part of the "impossible" input IS NEVER REACHABLE.
>
int DD()
{
   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}

>
It is unless HHH never returns.

>
When DD is correctly simulated by HHH it is impossible
for any HHH to return to any emulated DD.

>
That HHH fails to emulate DD to the first "if" does not mean that
the excution of DD does not reach that "if".

 When DD is emulated by HHH according to the rules
of the x86 language then the emulated DD cannot
possibly reach its own emulated final halt state.

But HHH doesn't correct emulated DD by those rules, as those rules do not allow HHH to stop its emulation, and thus your premise is just incorrect.

 That you don't have a clue about the x86 language
and still say that I am wrong is a reckless disregard
for the truth.

That you think x86 processors can just randomly stop on their own in the middle of running a prgram shows how little YOU understand what you are talking about.
This just proves that you are an ignorant pathological liar, that doesn't care about the truth, just if you can find the right lie to "prove" your point.

 

It only means that
HHH incorrectly interpretes a call to HHH to mean a call to a
non-terminating non-decider.
>