Re: Bad faith and dishonesty

On 30/05/2025 10:19, vallor wrote:

On Thu, 29 May 2025 19:40:57 +0100, Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk>
wrote in <101a9np$gl7$1@dont-email.me>:
 

On 29/05/2025 19:14, olcott wrote:

On 5/29/2025 12:40 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 29/05/2025 16:49, olcott wrote:

On 5/28/2025 4:16 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 28/05/2025 22:05, dbush wrote:

On 5/28/2025 2:38 PM, olcott wrote:

My only aim is to show that the conventional halting problem proof
is wrong.

>
But why would you care whether or not the proof is wrong when
you've gone on record (multiple times) as stating that what the
proof proves is correct?

>
It would certainly earn him a place in history's footnotes, which
might well be considered sufficient motive. But he'd have to be able
to explain why he's right, which of course he can't.
>
<snip>
>
>

See my post: [Disagreeing with tautologies is always incorrect]

>
And it seems you still can't.
>
I have already read your article "Disagreeing with tautologies is
always incorrect"[1], which completely fails to explain your proof.

>
Maybe you have no idea what a tautology is.

>
Maybe you think that asserting something is true is sufficient to make
it true. It isn't.
>
>

Its the same thing as a self-evident truth.

>
Maybe you think that asserting something is self-evidently true is
sufficient to make it self-evidently true. It isn't.
>

<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
>
It is a tautology that any input D to termination analyzer H that
*would never stop running unless aborted*
DOES SPECIFY NON-TERMINATING BEHAVIOR.

>
But in making that claim you assume that you correctly know the
termination behaviour of D.
>
I can easily sketch out a program that your HHH analyser would
impatiently abort as non-terminating, but which could conceivably stop
running this year, next year, sometime... or never.

 Was wondering when someone would mention that...what does his HHH()
do with arbitrary programs?
 $ cat ddd.c
#include <stdio.h>
 void ddd(int r)
     {
     r--;
     if(r <= 0) return;
     fprintf(stderr,"calling ddd(%d)\n",r);
     ddd(r);
     fprintf(stderr,"returning, r=%d\n",r);
     return;
     }
  int main(void)
{
 ddd(50);
 return 0;
}
 I'd bet his HHH() would say this is non-terminating.
 

It does what it does with DDD:  it simulates the program while monitoring the simulation progress, looking for what it considers to be signs of non-halting behaviour.  If it spots what it thinks is non-halting behaviour, it decides non-halting.  If the simulation halts, it decides halts. Otherwise it will continue simulating indefinitely.
@Richard:  so you cannot make HHH decide non-halting simply by looping for a long long time, hoping HHH will get fed up!  That would just result in HHH simulating for a corresponding long long time. You need to feed it a program that halts, but matches one of his non-halting behaviour tests.  For example DDD.
@vallor:  so with your example, ddd halts, and I don't believe any of HHH's tests would match, so HHH would simulate your ddd to completion and decide it halts.
Mike.