Re: Halting Problem: What Constitutes Pathological Input

On 5/6/2025 10:22 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/6/2025 5:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/6/25 4:57 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/6/2025 3:49 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/6/2025 4:37 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/6/2025 3:22 PM, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 06 May 2025 13:05:15 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 5/6/2025 5:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/5/25 10:18 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/5/2025 8:59 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/5/2025 8:57 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/5/2025 7:49 PM, dbush wrote:

>

DO COMPUTE THAT THE INPUT IS NON-HALTING IFF (if and only if) the
mapping FROM INPUTS IS COMPUTED.

i.e. it is found to map something other than the above function
which is a contradiction.

The above function VIOLATES COMPUTER SCIENCE. You make no attempt to
show how my claim THAT IT VIOLATES COMPUTER SCIENCE IS INCORRECT you
simply take that same quote from a computer science textbook as the
infallible word-of-God.

What does it violate?
>

All you are doing is showing that you don't understand proof by
contradiction,

Not at all. The COMPUTER SCIENCE of your requirements IS WRONG!

No, YOU don't understand what Computer Science actually is talking
about.

Every function computed by a model of computation must apply a specific
sequence of steps that are specified by the model to the actual finite
string input.

>

You are very confused. An algorithm or program computes a function.
>

>
Nothing computes a function unless it applies a specific
set of rules to its actual input to derive its output.
Anything that ignores its input is not computing a function.
>

>
False.  Anything that correctly associates a function's input to a function's output for all elements of the function's domain does in fact compute that function.
>
>
For example, given this function:
>
For all integers X and Y:
(X,Y) maps to 5
>
This algorithm computes it:
>
int foo(int X, int Y) { return 5; }
>

>
The rules that must be applied to the inputs
are the rules of arithmetic. Since the input
was ignored foo() did not compute the sum
of any input. INPUTS must be transformed into
OUTPUTS using rules.

>
What rules said the method that must be used to get the answer?
>
The rules of the mapping define a way to get the correct answer, not the only way to determine it.
>

 Guessing is not one of the correct ways.

If an algorithm correctly associates inputs with outputs as per the mapping, it is by definition correct.  The method doesn't matter.

 

>
This is brand new computer science that I just created.
It can be inferred from the other details of what
computable functions are:

>
In other words you are admitting that you are just lying about everythinng you said being applicable to the actual problems since you are just talking about Olcott-Prorgramms which no one cares about, and you probably can't actually define.
>

 I expanded the knowledge of computer science by deducing
that functions computed by models of computation must apply
a specific sequence of steps to their inputs to derive
their outputs is proven by the fact that OUTPUTS must
correspond to INPUTS.

And this algorithm:
int foo(int X, int Y) { return 5; }
Correctly derives outputs from inputs in all cases as per the mapping:
For all integers X and Y:
(X,Y) maps to 5

 *Apply an algorithm TO INPUTS to derive OUTPUTS*

And the above does that.

 Thus all instances of models of computation that
ignore their inputs are not computing functions.
 Computable functions have their analog in software
engineering. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_function
 

>
INPUTS must correspond to OUTPUTS.
There must be some process that ensures that
INPUTS correspond to OUTPUTS. Every process
must have some sequence of steps.
>

>
So?
>

 The sequence of steps of DD emulated by HHH must
be according to the rules of the x86 language.
 

And it doesn't do that, as you are on record admitting as much:
On 5/5/2025 8:24 AM, dbush wrote:
 > On 5/4/2025 11:03 PM, dbush wrote:
 >> On 5/4/2025 10:05 PM, olcott wrote:
 >>> On 5/4/2025 7:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
 >>>> But HHH doesn't correct emulated DD by those rules, as those rules
 >>>> do not allow HHH to stop its emulation,
 >>>
 >>> Sure they do you freaking moron...
 >>
 >> Then show where in the Intel instruction manual that the execution of
 >> any instruction other than a HLT is allowed to stop instead of
 >> executing the next instruction.
 >>
 >> Failure to do so in your next reply, or within one hour of your next
 >> post on this newsgroup, will be taken as you official on-the-record
 >> admission that there is no such allowance and that HHH does NOT
 >> correctly simulate DD.
 >
 > Let the record show that Peter Olcott made the following post in this
 > newsgroup after the above message:
 >
 > On 5/4/2025 11:04 PM, olcott wrote:
 >  > D *WOULD NEVER STOP RUNNING UNLESS*
 >  > indicates that professor Sipser was agreeing
 >  > to hypotheticals AS *NOT CHANGING THE INPUT*
 >  >
 >  > You are taking
 >  > *WOULD NEVER STOP RUNNING UNLESS*
 >  > to mean *NEVER STOPS RUNNING* that is incorrect.
 >
 > And has made no attempt after over 9 hours to show where in the Intel
 > instruction manual that execution is allowed to stop after any
 > instruction other than HLT.
 >
 > Therefore, as per the above criteria:
 >
 > LET THE RECORD SHOW
 >
 > That Peter Olcott
 >
 > Has *officially* admitted
 >
 > That DD is NOT correctly simulated by HHH