Re: The halting problem as defined is a category error

On 7/24/2025 5:07 AM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 23 Jul 2025 16:08:51 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/23/2025 3:56 PM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 23 Jul 2025 15:14:35 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/23/2025 2:06 PM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 23 Jul 2025 09:24:15 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/23/2025 8:31 AM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 23 Jul 2025 07:22:55 -0500 schrieb olcott:

 

The actual behavior that is actually specified must include that in
both of these cases recursive simulation is specified. We can't just
close our eyes and pretend otherwise.

That is what HHH does: close its eyes and pretend that DDD called a
pure simulator instead of recursing. See below.
>

That you don't understand my code is ot a rebuttal. HHH simulate DDD
that calls HHH(DDD) that causes the directly executed HHH to simulate
itself simulating DDD until this simulated simulated DDD calls a
simulated simulated HHH(DDD).

>
Of course, and then it incorrectly assumes that an unaborted simulation
*of this HHH*, which does in fact abort, wouldn't abort.
>

If HHH(DDD) never aborts its simulation then this HHH never stops
running.

If HHH (which aborts) was given to a UTM/pure simulator, it would
stop running.
 

typedef void (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
int Simulate(ptr x)
{
   x();
   return 1;
}
It is the behavior of the input to HHH(DDD) that
HHH is supposed to measure.
It is not the behavior of the input to Simulate(DDD)
that HHH is supposed to measure.
It is also not the behavior of the directly executed
DDD() that HHH is supposed to measure.
HHH(DDD) is only supposed to measure the behavior
of its own input.
It has been three years and still not one person
has understood that the behavior of an input that
calls its own simulator is not the same as the behavior
of an input that does not call its own simulator.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer