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

On 5/11/25 5:15 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/11/2025 4:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/11/25 12:44 PM, olcott wrote:

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.

>
>
Which is DEFINED to be the bahavior of the program that the input represents when run.

 When you define 5 == 6 you are simply wrong.
That definition contradicts other axioms.
 

And where did I do that?
Show your source of the words actually defined by reliable sources that make my claim wrong.
After all, the statement of the Halting problem from one of your favorite sources is:
In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer program and an input, whether the program will finish running, or continue to run forever.
If that isn't talking about the direct execution of the program, what is it talking about?
That you don't like that definition, is your problem, and just shows you don't like that some rules just make your ideas wrong.