Sujet : Re: HP counter-example INPUT cannot possibly exist
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 21. Jun 2025, 16:49:30
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <1036kab$14sj8$4@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 6/21/2025 3:20 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-20 16:54:32 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/19/2025 3:17 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-18 16:05:33 +0000, olcott said:
>
On 6/18/2025 10:57 AM, joes wrote:
Am Wed, 18 Jun 2025 09:39:02 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 6/16/2025 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-15 14:44:47 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/15/2025 4:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-13 15:33:45 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/13/2025 5:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
>
As you respond to my question without answering it it is obvious
that you don't see any proofs in your article.
>
It is a fact that there is no actual input D to any termination
analyzer H that does the opposite of whatever value that H derives.
The key element that all conventional HP proofs depend on cannot
possibly exist.
>
Nonsense is not a fact.
>
After studying these things for 22 years I found that every
conventional proof of the halting problem never provides an actual
input that would do the opposite of whatever value that its partial
halt decider (PHD) returns.
>
The core part of those proofs is a constructive specification of that
test case.
>
Yet no one ever noticed that the counter-example input cannot even be
constructed thus the proof itself never actually existed.
In what sense? The code for DDD is clearly in your repository.
>
There has never been any HP proof that has
ever defined *AN ACTUAL INPUT* to a termination
analyzer that can possibly do the opposite of
whatever value that this termination analyzer
determines.
>
Of course a proof of the halting problem does not define anything
for a termination alayzer. Termination anlyzers are not a relevant
for any proof (or other discussion) about the halting problem.
>
>
Simulating termination analyzer are equivalent to
a partial halt deciders.
If they are they should be called "simulating partial halt deciders".
That is too confusing for most of my reviewers.
Simulating termination analyzer is an existing
term with the exact meaning that I am referring to.
The term "termination analyzer" refers to a problem different from
the halting problem.
Not at all.
Google [termination analyzer versus halt decider]
The halting problem is about questions about computations but
the termination problem is about questions about programs.
In both cases the STA or the SPHD is required to determine
the behavior specified by the *input* encoded as a sequence
of state changes.
-- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Geniushits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
Re: "big fat ignorant liar"
Re: "big fat ignorant liar"