Sujet : Re: Halting Problem: What Constitutes Pathological Input
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 06. May 2025, 19:05:15
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <vvdj0r$3cbpq$9@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 5/6/2025 5:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/5/25 10:18 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/5/2025 8:59 PM, dbush wrote:
On 5/5/2025 8:57 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/5/2025 7:49 PM, dbush wrote:
>
Which starts with the assumption that an algorithm exists that performs the following mapping:
>
>
Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of instructions) X described as <X> with input Y:
>
A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes the following mapping:
>
(<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly
(<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed directly
>
>
>
DO COMPUTE THAT THE INPUT IS NON-HALTING
IFF (if and only if) the mapping FROM INPUTS
IS COMPUTED.
>
i.e. it is found to map something other than the above function which is a contradiction.
>
>
The above function VIOLATES COMPUTER SCIENCE.
You make no attempt to show how my claim
THAT IT VIOLATES COMPUTER SCIENCE IS INCORRECT
you simply take that same quote from a computer
science textbook as the infallible word-of-God.
>
All you are doing is showing that you don't understand proof by contradiction,
>
Not at all. The COMPUTER SCIENCE of your requirements IS WRONG!
>
No, YOU don't understand what Computer Science actually is talking about.
Every function computed by a model of computation
must apply a specific sequence of steps that are
specified by the model to the actual finite string
input.
HHH(DD) must emulate DD according to the rules
of the x86 language.
THIS DOES DERIVE THAT THE CORRECTLY EMULATED DD DOES NOT HALT.
That everyone here thinks that HHH can simply ignore
the rules of the x86 language and jump over the "call"
instruction to the "ret" instruction seems quite stupid
to me.
_DD()
[00002133] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping
[00002134] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping
[00002136] 51 push ecx ; make space for local
[00002137] 6833210000 push 00002133 ; push DD
[0000213c] e882f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DD)
[00002141] 83c404 add esp,+04
[00002144] 8945fc mov [ebp-04],eax
[00002147] 837dfc00 cmp dword [ebp-04],+00
[0000214b] 7402 jz 0000214f
[0000214d] ebfe jmp 0000214d
[0000214f] 8b45fc mov eax,[ebp-04]
[00002152] 8be5 mov esp,ebp
[00002154] 5d pop ebp
[00002155] c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0035) [00002155]
-- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Geniushits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer