Re: Flibble’s Leap: Why Behavioral Divergence Implies a Type Distinction in the Halting Problem

On 5/11/2025 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/11/2025 6:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/11/25 7:14 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/11/2025 6:05 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:

Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> writes:

On Sun, 11 May 2025 18:15:47 +0100, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>

On 11/05/2025 17:59, Mr Flibble wrote:

it is impossible to obtain a halting result

>
>
That sure looks like a concession that it's impossible to devise an
algorithm that will produce a halting result.
>
Well done. We got you there in the end.

>
No. The reason why it is impossible to obtain a halting result for
pathological input is not the reason proposed by Turing (i.e. self-
referential diagonalization), it is impossible to obtain a halting result
for pathological input because the self-referential conflation of decider
and input is a category error that prevents us from performing
diagonalization.

>
Is it possible to determine whether a given input is "pathological" or not?
>

To usefully advance research in this area pathological input needs to be
excluded from the set of programs that can be analysed by a decider.

>
Can this exclusion be performed reliably and consistently?
>

>
That is a good question. The answer is definitely
yes. When HHH emulates DDD it only needs to see
that DDD is calling itself with no conditional branch
instructions inbetween.
>
Whether a function computed by a Turing machine can
do this is a different question.
>

>
So, try to do it.
>

 No need to. DDD emulated by HHH according to the
rules of the computational language that DD is
encoded within

Doesn't happen, as you have admitted on the record:
On 5/5/2025 8:24 AM, dbush wrote:
 > On 5/4/2025 11:03 PM, dbush wrote:
 >> On 5/4/2025 10:05 PM, olcott wrote:
 >>> On 5/4/2025 7:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
 >>>> But HHH doesn't correct emulated DD by those rules, as those rules
 >>>> do not allow HHH to stop its emulation,
 >>>
 >>> Sure they do you freaking moron...
 >>
 >> Then show where in the Intel instruction manual that the execution of
 >> any instruction other than a HLT is allowed to stop instead of
 >> executing the next instruction.
 >>
 >> Failure to do so in your next reply, or within one hour of your next
 >> post on this newsgroup, will be taken as you official on-the-record
 >> admission that there is no such allowance and that HHH does NOT
 >> correctly simulate DD.
 >
 > Let the record show that Peter Olcott made the following post in this
 > newsgroup after the above message:
 >
 > On 5/4/2025 11:04 PM, olcott wrote:
 >  > D *WOULD NEVER STOP RUNNING UNLESS*
 >  > indicates that professor Sipser was agreeing
 >  > to hypotheticals AS *NOT CHANGING THE INPUT*
 >  >
 >  > You are taking
 >  > *WOULD NEVER STOP RUNNING UNLESS*
 >  > to mean *NEVER STOPS RUNNING* that is incorrect.
 >
 > And has made no attempt after over 9 hours to show where in the Intel
 > instruction manual that execution is allowed to stop after any
 > instruction other than HLT.
 >
 > Therefore, as per the above criteria:
 >
 > LET THE RECORD SHOW
 >
 > That Peter Olcott
 >
 > Has *officially* admitted
 >
 > That DD is NOT correctly simulated by HHH