Re: The actual truth is that ... Turing computability issues have been addressed --- marathon winner

On 10/16/2024 1:32 AM, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 15 Oct 2024 22:52:00 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 10/15/2024 9:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/15/24 8:39 AM, olcott wrote:

On 10/15/2024 4:58 AM, joes wrote:

Am Mon, 14 Oct 2024 20:12:37 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 10/14/2024 6:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/14/24 12:05 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/14/2024 6:21 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/14/24 5:53 AM, olcott wrote:

On 10/14/2024 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-10-13 12:49:01 +0000, Richard Damon said:

On 10/12/24 8:11 PM, olcott wrote:

>

Trying to change to a different analytical framework than the one
that I am stipulating is the strawman deception. *Essentially an
intentional fallacy of equivocation error*

But, you claim to be working on that Halting Problem,

I quit claiming this many messages ago and you didn't bother to
notice.

Can you please give the date and time? Did you also explicitly
disclaim it or just silently leave it out?

Even people of low intelligence that are not trying to be as
disagreeable as possible would be able to notice that a specified C
function is not a Turing machine.

But it needs to be computationally equivalent to one to ask about
Termination.

Not at all. A termination analyzer need
not be a Turing computable function.

It definitely does. An uncomputable analyser is useless.
 

It is true that a termination analyzer is not required
to work correctly for all inputs.
That there is one way that HHH can consistently catch the
non-terminating pattern of its input proves that this can
be done.
Mike suggested some different ways that would seem to be
Turing computable yet too convoluted to be time consuming
for me to implement in practice.
The basic approach involves the idea that every state change
of the emulations of emulations is data that belongs to the
outermost directly executed HHH.
It is too convoluted for me to provide a way for HHH to
look inside all of the emulations of emulations and pull
out the data that it needs, so knowing that this is possible
is enough to know that it is Turing computable.
Because my life is being cut short by cancer I cut to
the chase and hypothesize this pair of necessary truths:
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
When HHH is an x86 emulation based termination analyzer then
each DDD *correctly_emulated_by* any HHH that it calls never returns.
Each of the directly executed HHH emulator/analyzers that returns
0 correctly reports the above *non_terminating _behavior* of its input.

When HHH is an x86 emulation based termination analyzer then each DDD
*correctly_emulated_by* any HHH that it calls never returns.

Only because the nested HHH doesn't abort.
 

Every nested HHH has seen one less execution trace than
the next outer one. The outermost one aborts its emulation
as soon as it has seen enough. Thus each inner HHH cannot
possibly abort its own emulation.
It is just like guys running in a marathon at exactly the same
speed where each one is ten feet in front of the other. Only the
first guy can possibly win.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer