Re: Who here understands that the last paragraph is Necessarily true?

On 7/19/2024 2:57 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-17 13:27:08 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 7/17/2024 2:43 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-16 18:24:49 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 7/16/2024 3:12 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-15 02:33:28 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 7/14/2024 9:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/14/24 9:27 PM, olcott wrote:

>
Any input that must be aborted to prevent the non termination
of simulating termination analyzer HHH necessarily specifies
non-halting behavior or it would never need to be aborted.

>
Excpet, as I have shown, it doesn't.
>
Your problem is you keep on ILEGALLY changing the input in your argument because you have misdefined what the input is.
>

>
_DDD()
[00002163] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002164] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002166] 6863210000 push 00002163 ; push DDD
[0000216b] e853f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DDD)
[00002170] 83c404     add esp,+04
[00002173] 5d         pop ebp
[00002174] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002174]
>
The input *is* the machine address of this finite
string of bytes: 558bec6863210000e853f4ffff83c4045dc3

>
You have already said that a decider is not allowed to answer anything
other than its input. Now you say that the the program at 15c3 is not
a part of the input. Therefore a decider is not allowed consider it
even to the extent to decide whether it ever returns. But without that
knowledge it is not possible to determine whether DDD halts.
>

>
It maps the finite string 558bec6863210000e853f4ffff83c4045dc3
to non-halting behavior because this finite string calls HHH(DDD)
in recursive simulation.

>
That mapping is not a part of the finite string and not a part of the
problem specification.

>
decider/input pairs <are> a key element of the specification.

 

Computable functions are the formalized analogue of the intuitive notion of algorithms, in the sense that a function is computable if there exists an algorithm that can do the job of the function, i.e. given an input of the function domain it can return the corresponding output. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function

Not of any specification of any interesting problem.
 

Everyone here seems to think that they can stupidly ignore
the fact that an input calls its own decider and make pretend
that this pathological relationship does not exist.

The finite string does not reveal what is the
effect of calling whatever that address happens to contain.

>
A simulating termination analyzer proves this.

 Irrelevant, as you just said it is not a part of the input.
 

It is not part of the input in that we already know that
HHH halts and we only need to find out whether or not DDD halts.

The
behaviour of HHH is specified outside of the input. Therefore your
"decider" decides about a non-input, which you said is not allowed.

>
HHH is not allowed to report on the behavior of it actual self
in its own directly executed process. HHH is allowed to report on
the effect of the behavior of the simulation of itself simulating DDD.

 Now you said that it is allowed to report on a non-input.
Earlier you have said that it is not allowed to report on a non-input.
 

Not the same. It cannot report on its actual self as a directly
executed process. I can report on a copy of itself that it being
emulating in a different process.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer