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

On 5/12/2025 1:58 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/12/2025 12:30 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/12/2025 1:16 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/12/2025 12:07 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/12/2025 12:54 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/12/2025 11:41 AM, dbush wrote:

On 5/12/2025 12:19 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/12/2025 10:06 AM, dbush wrote:

On 5/12/2025 11:04 AM, olcott wrote:

Termination analyzers compute the mapping from their
inputs to the behavior that these inputs actually specify.

>
False.  They compute the mapping from their input to the behavior of the algorithm described by the input when executed directly, as per the requirements:
>

>
That is easily proven stupidly wrong.

>
>
Category error.  Definitions are not proven:
>

>
Definitions that contradict other definitions are refuted.
>

>
>
And you haven't shown a conflict with the definition of a solution to the halting problem:
>

>
That you keep ignoring it its not
a matter of me never providing it.
>

>
In other words, you agree that no algorithm exists that can compute the following mapping:
>

 Likewise no algorithm exists that can compute
the square root of a dead rabbit.

And as was said before:
On 5/5/2025 5:39 PM, olcott wrote:
 > On 5/5/2025 4:31 PM, dbush wrote:
 >> Strawman.  The square root of a dead rabbit does not exist, but the
 >> question of whether any arbitrary algorithm X with input Y halts when
 >> executed directly has a correct answer in all cases.
 >>
 >
 > It has a correct answer that cannot ever be computed
Where you *explicitly* agreed that the Linz halting theorem is correct.