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

On 5/11/2025 7:26 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 5/10/2025 3:22 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> wrote:

On Sat, 10 May 2025 18:48:12 +0000, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

 

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

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

 

[ .... ]

 

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.

 

You've spent over 20 years on this matter.  Compare this with Alan
Turing's solution of the Entscheidungsproblem.  He published this in
1936 when he was just 24 years old.

 

Turing didn't solve anything: what he published contained a mistake: the
category (type) error that I have described previously in this forum.

 

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.

 

/Flibble

 

It is the whole gist of the entire idea of
the halting problem proof that is wrongheaded.

 You are, in fact, quite wrong.  The halting problem is in the field of
mathematics.  You are ignorant of this field, thus unable to contribute
towards it, or make judgments about it.
 If you still think you are correct, and cannot point out a flaw in Alan
Turing's original 1936 paper, perhaps you can find somebody qualified,
i.e. with (at least) a first degree in mathematics, to back up your
claim.
 

The flaw is that the conclusion is incorrect.
One can ignore every step in a proof and show
that it is wrong by simply proving that its
conclusion is incorrect.
_DDD()
[00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec       mov  ebp,esp  ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404     add  esp,+04
[00002182] 5d         pop  ebp
[00002183] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
It is baby talk obvious that DDD emulated by HHH
according to the rules of the x86 language cannot
possibly reach if own "ret" instruction final halt
state. This provides the basis for HHH to reject
DDD as non-halting.
The same thing applies to the Halting Problem's
counter example input:
int DD()
{
   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}

Otherwise your credibility lies close to zero.
 

Credibility has always been a crappy proxy
for validity.

[ .... ]
 

-- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

 

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer