On 10/28/2025 4:18 AM, Mikko wrote:Nice to see that you don't disagree.On 2025-10-27 13:47:17 +0000, olcott said:int D()
On 10/27/2025 4:39 AM, Mikko wrote:More importantly, an attempt of a straw man deception dishonest.On 2025-10-26 14:46:33 +0000, olcott said:Saying that the halting problem proof counter-example
Summary of the key point:The halting problem's self-referential construction creates two distinct computational entities:The halting problem does refer itself nor requires that any entity
should refer to itself. At most the descriptions of the program and
can be seen as references to the program and input asked about, and
some formulations of the problem don't mention even that. The program
asked about does not refer to anything outside itself and the input
asked about. No semantics of the input asked about is relevant fo the
halting problem so in that context nothing in the input refers to
anything.
Input (DD-as-simulated-by-HHH): Shows non-halting behavior - recursive pattern that HHH correctly identifiesNot relevant to the halting problem,
Non-input (DD-as-directly-executed): Halts because HHH returns 0
input is not relevant to the halting problem is dishonest.
Less importantly, an attempt to distract with an irrelevancy is
dishonest, too.
{
int Halt_Status = H(D);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}
H simulates D
that calls H(D) to simulate D
that calls H(D) to simulate D
that calls H(D) to simulate D
that calls H(D) to simulate D
that calls H(D) to simulate D
until H sees this repeating pattern.
When simulating halt decider H is reporting on the
behavior that its input specifies then H is correct
to reject D as non-halting.
Deciders only compute a mapping from their actual
inputs. Computing the mapping from non-inputs is
outside of the scope of Turing machines.
--
Mikko
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.