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

Am Sat, 10 May 2025 17:03:26 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 5/10/2025 4:44 PM, wij wrote:

On Sat, 2025-05-10 at 14:29 -0500, olcott wrote:

On 5/10/2025 2:02 PM, wij wrote:

On Sat, 2025-05-10 at 13:47 -0500, olcott wrote:

On 5/10/2025 1:37 PM, wij wrote:

On Sat, 2025-05-10 at 13:17 -0500, olcott wrote:

On 5/10/2025 1:09 PM, wij wrote:

On Sat, 2025-05-10 at 12:17 -0500, olcott wrote:

On 5/10/2025 12:01 PM, wij wrote:

On Sat, 2025-05-10 at 11:47 -0500, olcott wrote:

On 5/10/2025 11:29 AM, wij wrote:

On Sat, 2025-05-10 at 11:19 -0500, olcott wrote:

On 5/10/2025 11:06 AM, wij wrote:

On Sat, 2025-05-10 at 10:45 -0500, olcott wrote:

On 5/10/2025 10:28 AM, wij wrote:

On Sat, 2025-05-10 at 09:33 -0500, olcott wrote:

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

Am 09.05.2025 um 04:22 schrieb olcott:

It correctly determines that the halting problem's
otherwise "impossible" input is actually non halting.

...which makes it halt.

The input that has baffled computer scientists for 90 years
is merely correctly determined to be non-halting when the
behavior of this input is measured by HHH emulating this
input according to the rules of the x86 language.

Nobody is baffled. It halts.

I have no problem with that. And, you said HHH merely rejects
it as non-halting. You had denied HHH can decide the halting
property of any input, except DDD/DD/D..
>

As long as HHH correctly determines the halt status of a single
input that has no inputs then HHH is a correct termination
analyzer for that input.

>
I have no problem with that, but be noticed that the HHH inside
DD is not the 'HHH' that makes the final decision (otherwise, the
'HHH'
will be an infinite recursive which cannot make any decision,
which you had agreed)

The original set theory is now called naive set theory after its
mistake has been corrected. Thus the original halting problem proofs
can now be called the naive halting problem proofs.

Traditional logic (or the part mostly used) that won't cause confusion
is more reliable.

The HP doesn't lead to contradictions.

The halting problem itself remains the same, yet loses its most
important proof.

 
HP is based on TM. Proof of any other kind other than TM have to be
cautious.

Unless this is done as an actual simulating termination analyzer in a
high level language like C and it operates on a 100% complete exactingly
precise input specification such as the x86 language too many details
slip through the cracks of vagueness.

TMs are concrete. What details, what vagueness?

For example no one ever even noticed that it is 100% impossible to
derive an input that actually does the opposite of whatever value that
its termination analyzer reports.

Wrong, DDD calls HHH, which returns "non-halting", *and halts*.

--
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.