On 18/11/2025 03:10, dart200 wrote:
On 11/17/25 7:07 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-11-18, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 11/17/25 4:31 PM, olcott wrote:
On 11/17/2025 6:06 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 11/17/25 3:35 PM, olcott wrote:
The halting problem is requiring deciders to
compute information that is not contained in
their input.
ur agreeing with turing and the halting problem:
one cannot compute whether a machine halts or not from the string
describing the machine
That the halting problem limits computation
is like this very extreme example:
Predict who the next president of the United States
will be entirely on the basis of û2 (square root of 2).
That cannot be derived from the input.
bruh, ur agreeing with the halting problem:
one cannot take the string describing the machine, and use it to
compute
whether the machine described halts
But that isn't true; you certainly can do that. Just not using one
unified algorithm that works for absolutely all such strings.
When it /does/ work, it's certainly not based on any input other than
the string.
yes i meant generally
you also can't compute generally whether you can or cannot compute
whether a an machine description halts or not
What does that mean though?
It sounds like you're asking for a /single/ TM that given /any/ machine description D, must compute "whether or not D's halting is computable". [And saying no such single TM exists?]
The problem is in the phrase within quotes.ÿ Surely that phrase means "whether or not there exists a TM that computes whether the given D
halts or not"?ÿ If not, what does it mean?
Mike.
Liars try to claim that DD simulated by HHH
(according to the semantics of the C programming
language) reaches its own simulated "return"
statement final halt state.
They are utterly dumbfounded when I ask them
to prove this by a contiguous execution trace
of DD simulated by HHH in C showing how and
why DD reaches its own simulated "return"
statement final halt state.
That is how and why we can know that they are
liars and not merely confused.
On 19/11/2025 01:41, olcott wrote:
On 11/18/2025 7:07 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-11-19, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
Liars try to claim that DD simulated by HHH
(according to the semantics of the C programming
language) reaches its own simulated "return"
statement final halt state.
Without the implementation of HHH beng specified, we cannot tell; it
could be the case that HHH(DD) does not return.
Yes because no software engineer could possibly
have any idea what simulated means.
software engineers don't normally work with "simulated", they work with "emulated" and "virtual". The latter refers to a generalisation of
"emulated" which includes machines that haven't actually existed.
"simulated" can include a wide variety of analyses that characterise a
system by relations between its starting states and ending states to
include statistical ones.
The use of simulate to mean emulate in discussion of the Halting Problem seems to me to be obsolete now, if it /ever/ meant to strictly emulate.
Since halting analysis may include and even sometimes be completed by syntactic analysis not just emulation/virtualisation the non-existence
of universal halting deciders and the existence of thwarters had to
cover the syntactic analysis cases.
--
Tristan Wibberley
The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except
citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may,
of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it
verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to
promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation
of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general
superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train
any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that
will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.
On 11/19/2025 12:20 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
On 19/11/2025 01:41, olcott wrote:
On 11/18/2025 7:07 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-11-19, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
Liars try to claim that DD simulated by HHH
(according to the semantics of the C programming
language) reaches its own simulated "return"
statement final halt state.
Without the implementation of HHH beng specified, we cannot tell; it
could be the case that HHH(DD) does not return.
Yes because no software engineer could possibly
have any idea what simulated means.
software engineers don't normally work with "simulated", they work with
"emulated" and "virtual". The latter refers to a generalisation of
"emulated" which includes machines that haven't actually existed.
"simulated" can include a wide variety of analyses that characterise a
system by relations between its starting states and ending states to
include statistical ones.
The use of simulate to mean emulate in discussion of the Halting Problem
seems to me to be obsolete now, if it /ever/ meant to strictly emulate.
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
In the above case simulate does perfectly mean emulate
because HHH is anchored in a world class x86 emulator.
The problem with x86 emulation is essentially no one
has even a slight clue about the simple semantics of
the x86 language.
Because of this I switched to simulate
as in a C interpreter emulates code written in C.
On 11/19/2025 12:20 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
On 19/11/2025 01:41, olcott wrote:
On 11/18/2025 7:07 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-11-19, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
Liars try to claim that DD simulated by HHH
(according to the semantics of the C programming
language) reaches its own simulated "return"
statement final halt state.
Without the implementation of HHH beng specified, we cannot tell; it
could be the case that HHH(DD) does not return.
Yes because no software engineer could possibly
have any idea what simulated means.
software engineers don't normally work with "simulated", they work with
"emulated" and "virtual". The latter refers to a generalisation of
"emulated" which includes machines that haven't actually existed.
"simulated" can include a wide variety of analyses that characterise a
system by relations between its starting states and ending states to
include statistical ones.
The use of simulate to mean emulate in discussion of the Halting Problem
seems to me to be obsolete now, if it /ever/ meant to strictly emulate.
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
In the above case simulate does perfectly mean emulate
because HHH is anchored in a world class x86 emulator.
The problem with x86 emulation is essentially no one
has even a slight clue about the simple semantics of
the x86 language. Because of this I switched to simulate
as in a C interpreter emulates code written in C.
On 11/19/2025 10:49 AM, olcott wrote:
On 11/19/2025 12:20 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
On 19/11/2025 01:41, olcott wrote:
On 11/18/2025 7:07 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-11-19, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
Liars try to claim that DD simulated by HHH
(according to the semantics of the C programming
language) reaches its own simulated "return"
statement final halt state.
Without the implementation of HHH beng specified, we cannot tell; it >>>>> could be the case that HHH(DD) does not return.
Yes because no software engineer could possibly
have any idea what simulated means.
software engineers don't normally work with "simulated", they work with
"emulated" and "virtual". The latter refers to a generalisation of
"emulated" which includes machines that haven't actually existed.
"simulated" can include a wide variety of analyses that characterise a
system by relations between its starting states and ending states to
include statistical ones.
The use of simulate to mean emulate in discussion of the Halting Problem >>> seems to me to be obsolete now, if it /ever/ meant to strictly emulate.
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
In the above case simulate does perfectly mean emulate
because HHH is anchored in a world class x86 emulator.
The problem with x86 emulation is essentially no one
has even a slight clue about the simple semantics of
the x86 language. Because of this I switched to simulate
as in a C interpreter emulates code written in C.
How does it emulate say CMPXCHG8B? Or LOCK CMPXCHG16B? Does it know that XCHG has an implied LOCK for legacy reasons?
[...]
| Sysop: | Tetrazocine |
|---|---|
| Location: | Melbourne, VIC, Australia |
| Users: | 14 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 237:53:08 |
| Calls: | 184 |
| Files: | 21,502 |
| Messages: | 82,415 |