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

On 5/10/2025 12:01 PM, wij wrote:

On Sat, 2025-05-10 at 11:47 -0500, olcott wrote:

On 5/10/2025 11:29 AM, wij wrote:

On Sat, 2025-05-10 at 11:19 -0500, olcott wrote:

On 5/10/2025 11:06 AM, wij wrote:

On Sat, 2025-05-10 at 10:45 -0500, olcott wrote:

On 5/10/2025 10:28 AM, wij wrote:

On Sat, 2025-05-10 at 09:33 -0500, olcott wrote:

On 5/10/2025 7:37 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:

Am 09.05.2025 um 04:22 schrieb olcott:
>

Look at their replies to this post.
Not a one of them will agree that
>
void DDD()
{
       HHH(DDD);
       return; // final halt state
}
>
When 1 or more instructions of DDD are correctly
simulated by HHH then the correctly simulated DDD cannot
possibly reach its "return" instruction (final halt state).
>
They have consistently disagreed with this
simple point for three years.

>
I guess that not even a professor of theoretical computer
science would spend years working on so few lines of code.
>

>
I created a whole x86utm operating system.
It correctly determines that the halting problem's
otherwise "impossible" input is actually non halting.
>
int DD()
{
       int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
       if (Halt_Status)
         HERE: goto HERE;
       return Halt_Status;
}
>
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm
>

>
Nope.
    From I know HHH(DD) decides whether the input DD is "impossible" input or not.
>

>
DD has the standard form of the "impossible" input.
HHH merely rejects it as non-halting.
>

>
You said 'merely' rejects it as non-halting.
So, POOH do not answer the input of any other function?
>

>
The input that has baffled computer scientists for 90
years is merely correctly determined to be non-halting
when the behavior of this input is measured by HHH
emulating this input according to the rules of the x86
language.
>
The same thing applies to the Linz proof yet cannot
be understood until after HHH(DDD) and HHH(DD) are
fully understood.
>

>
HHH(DDD) (whatever) at most says DDD is a pathological/midtaken input.
Others of what you say are your imagine and wishes, so far so true.
>

>
DDD emulated by HHH according to the rules of
the x86 language specifies recursive emulation
that cannot possibly reach the final halt state
of DDD.
>

 I have no problem with that. And, you said HHH merely rejects it as non-halting.
You had denied HHH can decide the halting property of any input, except DDD/DD/D..
 

As long as HHH correctly determines the halt status
of a single input that has no inputs then HHH is
a correct termination analyzer for that input.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer