Re: HHH(DD) --- COMPUTE ACTUAL MAPPING FROM INPUT TO OUTPUT

On 4/15/25 2:50 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/15/2025 11:05 AM, dbush wrote:

On 4/15/2025 11:29 AM, olcott wrote:

On 4/15/2025 3:25 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-04-15 03:41:02 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 4/14/2025 8:45 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 15/04/2025 02:18, olcott wrote:

On 4/14/2025 7:39 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 14/04/2025 12:56, olcott wrote:
>
<snip>
>

When people insist that a termination analyzer reports
on behavior other than the behavior that its finite string
input specifies this is isomorphic to requiring a perfectly
geometric square circle in the same two dimensional plane,
simply logically impossible, thus an incorrect requirement.

>
A termination analyzer that works is simply logically impossible, thus an incorrect requirement.
>

>
THAT IS A STUPID THING TO SAY THAT COMPLETELY IGNORES WHAT
COMPUTABLE FUNCTIONS ARE AND HOW THEY WORK.

>
You said precisely the same thing in reply to dbush. I have addressed your remark there, so I see no value in repeating my reply here.
>

HHH CORRECTLY REPORTS ON THE PATHOLOGICAL SELF-REFERENCE THAT
ITS INPUT SPECIFIES. THE DIRECT EXECUTION HAS NO SUCH PSR.

>
You say so,

>
Ignoring verified facts does not make them go away.

>
Ignoring verified proofs does not meke them go away.
But you keep ignoring them anyway.
>

>
int DD()
{
   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}
>
It is a verified fact that the input to HHH(DD) specifies
>

>
An algorithm which halts when executed directly.
>

>
It is flat out stupid to think that HHH should report on
behavior other than this specified behavior. Only people
that have zero depth of understanding would suggest this.

>
No, it is flat-out stupid to think that something that claims to be a halt decider / termination analyzer should report on anything other than the mapping which is the halting function:
>
>
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
>

>
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

>
And the mathematical halting function is not a computable function, as proven by Linz and others
>

>
*corresponding output to the input*
*corresponding output to the input*
*corresponding output to the input*
*corresponding output to the input*
>
Not freaking allowed to look at any damn thing
else besides the freaking input. Must compute whatever
mapping ACTUALLY EXISTS FROM THIS INPUT.
>

>
So the algorithm HHH that you've implemented computes *some* computable function, but it does not compute the halting function as it is not computable.
>
>

 *corresponding output to the input*
*corresponding output to the input*
*corresponding output to the input*
*corresponding output to the input*
*corresponding output to the input*
Knucklehead !!!
 

Right, and the corresponding output to the input is the results of executing the progrma described by the input and seeing if it halts.
That is the DEFINITION, and if you are too stupid to understand that, you are just proving it.