Re: Halting Problem: What Constitutes Pathological Input

Op 07.mei.2025 om 15:22 schreef olcott:

On 5/7/2025 1:18 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 07/05/2025 00:11, olcott wrote:

On 5/6/2025 5:49 PM, Mike Terry wrote:

On 06/05/2025 21:25, olcott wrote:

On 5/6/2025 2:35 PM, dbush wrote:

>
<snip>
>

HHH and UTM emulate DD exactly the same up until the point that HHH aborts,

>
When you trace through the actual steps you
will see that this is counter-factual.

>
No, it is exactly right.  Remember, I posted a comparison of the two traces side by side some time ago, and they were indeed IDENTICAL line for line up to the point where HHH decided to discontinue simulating.

>
That is counter-factual.

>
People who can be bothered to check for themselves can check for themselves.
>
People who (like me) can't be arsed to go through the palaver of getting your code to work must instead decide who they think is more credible - you or Mike.
>
No contest.
>
If you want people to believe you, you've got your work cut out. Shooting emotionally from the hip (as you do) isn't as convincing as explaining precisely, logically, and dispassionately why you're right (as Mike does).
>
If I were to run a book right now on an independent investigation of the point in the trace where the two traces diverge, I could offer astronomical odds on your claim without any fear of losing a penny, but no matter what odds I offered on Mike I would quickly have to close the book on his claim or face bankruptcy.
>
It isn't just your logic that needs a lot off work; it's your presentation, too. You come across as someone who /believes/ you're right, but it's not enough to call down lightning on Mike the heretic; Mike manages to keep calm because he /knows/ he's right. There's a huge and important difference between the two.
>
There's also an important difference between claiming that Mike's claim is counter-factual and /proving/ that his claim is counter-factual.

 int DD()
{
   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}
 Any sufficiently competent C programmer can see that
when DD is correctly simulated by HHH that this
simulated DD cannot get past its call to HHH(DD).

No one says that it can go past that point. Everybody here knows that HHH has a bug, which makes it impossible for it to reach the end of the halting program.

 The reason that I get angry is that everyone here
has denied that verified fact for three years.

Better get angry that you fail to understand for so many years what everybody is telling you. Nobody has denied verified facts here, except you.

 Can it really be true that most people here don't
hardly have any clue about actual programming?

No, there is only one here having no clue about programming.

 

Mike says he's posted evidence in support of his claim. I haven't seen it, but of the two of you I will unhesitatingly take his word for it rather than yours. Have you posted a rebuttal? If not, why not?
>

 The rebuttal is that
Even the simple code shown above proves that DD
correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its
own halt state.

Yes, we understand that due to a bug, HHH aborts prematurely and therefore does not reach the perfectly reachable code.

 I never take anyone's word, not even my doctor's word.
 

I am sorry for you. You will never learn anything in this way.