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

Op 11.mei.2025 om 19:35 schreef olcott:

On 5/11/2025 11:52 AM, dbush wrote:

On 5/11/2025 12:44 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/11/2025 6:13 AM, joes wrote:

Am Sat, 10 May 2025 15:42:13 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 5/10/2025 3:22 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

>

OK, then, give the page and line numbers from Turing's 1936 paper where
this alleged mistake was made.  I would be surprised indeed if you'd
even looked at Turing's paper, far less understood it.  Yet you're
ready to denigrate his work.
Perhaps it is time for you to withdraw these uncalled for insinuations.
>

It is the whole gist of the entire idea of the halting problem proof
that is wrongheaded.
(1) It is anchored in the false assumption that an input to a
termination analyzer can actually do this opposite of whatever value
that this analyzer returns. No one ever notices that this "do the
opposite" code is unreachable.

>

The simulated DDD doesn't matter. HHH returns to DDD, and DDD then does
the opposite.
>

>
HHH is only allowed to report on the behavior that
its actual input actually specifies.

>
False.  It must report on the behavior of the algorithm described by the input, as per the requirements:
>

 That was always only based on the false assumption
that these behaviors could not possibly diverge.
When I proves that these behaviors DO diverge that
changes everything.

The behaviours does not diverge. You could never show any difference in the traces. Moreover, a simulation that diverges from reality is just incorrect. I have worked on many different simulators for scientific equipment, but it was never accepted when a simulation diverged from the reality. That is just a failure of the simulation.
Also your HHH has a bug to abort before it can see the full specification of the input, which makes it fail.
.