Re: Incorrect requirements --- Computing the mapping from the input to HHH(DD)

Op 11.mei.2025 om 18:44 schreef olcott:

On 5/11/2025 6:13 AM, joes wrote:

Am Sat, 10 May 2025 15:42:13 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 5/10/2025 3:22 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

>

OK, then, give the page and line numbers from Turing's 1936 paper where
this alleged mistake was made.  I would be surprised indeed if you'd
even looked at Turing's paper, far less understood it.  Yet you're
ready to denigrate his work.
Perhaps it is time for you to withdraw these uncalled for insinuations.
>

It is the whole gist of the entire idea of the halting problem proof
that is wrongheaded.
(1) It is anchored in the false assumption that an input to a
termination analyzer can actually do this opposite of whatever value
that this analyzer returns. No one ever notices that this "do the
opposite" code is unreachable.

 

The simulated DDD doesn't matter. HHH returns to DDD, and DDD then does
the opposite.
>

 HHH is only allowed to report on the behavior that
its actual input actually specifies.
 int sum(int x, int y) { return x + y; }
sum(3,2) is not allowed to report on the sum of 5 + 7
because that is not what its input specifies.

Since the input for HHH specifies the conditional abort, HHH should report on that halting behaviour.
Reporting on a hypothetical HHH that is not in the input that does not abort is similar to reporting 5+7 to sum(3,2).