Re: Halting Problem: What Constitutes Pathological Input

On 5/7/2025 6:33 AM, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 06 May 2025 13:55:03 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 5/6/2025 7:12 AM, dbush wrote:

On 5/6/2025 12:55 AM, olcott wrote:

>

*EVERYONE IGNORES THIS*
It is very simple the mapping from inputs to outputs must have a well
defined sequence of steps.
>

FALSE!!!
There is no requirement that mappings have steps to compute them.
>

The requirement is that OUTPUTS must correspond to INPUTS. This requires
that outputs must be derived from INPUTS.
>
When DD is correctly emulated by HHH it is only allowed to apply the
specific sequence specified by the x86 language to derive the behavior
specified by this input.

Yes, and it is not allowed to just assume HHH doesn't halt.
>

 int DD()
{
   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}
 HHH (as every competent C programmer can see)
sees that DD correctly simulated by HHH cannot
possibly reach its of "return" instruction.
 It is very difficult for me to accept that everyone
here has been mostly clueless about actual programming
so that they deny this.
 

It's funny, you're asking for a correct simulation by HHH, but HHH
can't do it, so that's impossible. That doesn't make it right.
>

 A "correct simulation" cannot be based on some misconception
about what the end result is supposed to be. It must be based
on the behavior that the finite string actually specifies.

 If you don't have any clue about programming thus cannot
possibly verify my claim and you still claim that I
am wrong THAT IS DISHONEST.
 You can claim that it is your opinion that I am wrong.
 When you claim that I am actually wrong knowing full
well that you cannot possibly verify my proof that I
am correct this is a *reckless disregard for the truth*