Re: What it would take...

On 5/9/2025 8:11 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

The HHH code doesn't exactly invite confidence in its author, and his theory is all over the place, but a thought experiment suggests itself.
 If we were not all wasting our time bickering with a career bickerer... if we were to really /really/ try, could we patch up his case and send him on to his Turing Award? And if so, how?
 ISTR that there is suspected to be a theoretical window for him, so I suppose what I'm asking is what sort of boathook we would need to poke that window a little wider.
 Can he even get there from here? Evidence would suggest that simulation is a dead end unless he can find a way to get the simulated program to include its own simulation in its behaviour, which he has not yet managed to do - but /is/ there a way?
 Or could he abandon simulation completely and instead write a TM parser that builds an AST and walks it looking for evidence of terminating or looping? If he could, would that turn the trick?
 Or do we have a latter day Cantor waiting in the wings to close the window once and for all?
 Is there, in short, any way of putting out this un-halting flame war and turning this group to better use?
 

int DD()
{
   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}
DD correctly simulated by any pure simulator
named HHH cannot possibly terminate thus proving
that this criteria has been met:
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
     If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
     input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
     would never stop running unless aborted then
     H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
     specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer