Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Who here understands that the last paragraph is Necessarily true?
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2024 20:30:53 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <049a13f967ba3113219beb2223852628643f850e@i2pn2.org>
References: <v6un9t$3nufp$1@dont-email.me> <v7013v$2ccv$1@dont-email.me>
	<v70nt7$61d8$6@dont-email.me>
	<58fc6559638120b31e128fe97b5e955248afe218@i2pn2.org>
	<v71mjh$bp3i$1@dont-email.me>
	<1173a460ee95e0ca82c08abecdefc80ba86646ac@i2pn2.org>
	<v71okl$bvm2$1@dont-email.me>
	<5f6daf68f1b4ffac854d239282bc811b5b806659@i2pn2.org>
	<v71ttb$crk4$1@dont-email.me>
	<60e7a93cb8cec0afb68b3e40a0e82e9d63fa8e2a@i2pn2.org>
	<v721po$h4kr$1@dont-email.me> <v75a0l$16bjt$1@dont-email.me>
	<v76dth$1cf96$3@dont-email.me> <v77sna$1o83i$1@dont-email.me>
	<v78grc$1rc43$7@dont-email.me>
	<159ee197e838dba6c5c6909dca74c8a14e136246@i2pn2.org>
	<v78uhb$1ud1t$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2024 20:30:53 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3636180"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4016
Lines: 49

Am Wed, 17 Jul 2024 12:20:43 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 7/17/2024 12:16 PM, joes wrote:
>> Am Wed, 17 Jul 2024 08:27:08 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 7/17/2024 2:43 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-07-16 18:24:49 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>> On 7/16/2024 3:12 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-07-15 02:33:28 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>> On 7/14/2024 9:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/14/24 9:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>> 
>>>>>> You have already said that a decider is not allowed to answer
>>>>>> anything other than its input. Now you say that the the program at
>>>>>> 15c3 is not a part of the input. Therefore a decider is not allowed
>>>>>> consider it even to the extent to decide whether it ever returns.
>>>>>> But without that knowledge it is not possible to determine whether
>>>>>> DDD halts.
>>>>>>
>>>>> It maps the finite string 558bec6863210000e853f4ffff83c4045dc3 to
>>>>> non-halting behavior because this finite string calls HHH(DDD) in
>>>>> recursive simulation.
>> That string is meaningless outside of the execution environment of HHH,
>> specifically the simulation of DDD it is doing. It does not encode
>> anything, DDD does not have access to that address. That string doesn't
>> call anything, the program in HHH's memory space does.
>> Ceterum censeo that HHH halts.
>>>> That mapping is not a part of the finite string and not a part of the
>>>> problem specification.
>>> decider/input pairs <are> a key element of the specification.
>> 
>>>> The finite string does not reveal what is the effect of calling
>>>> whatever that address happens to contain.
>>> A simulating termination analyzer proves this.
>>>
>>>> The behaviour of HHH is specified outside of the input. Therefore
>>>> your "decider" decides about a non-input, which you said is not
>>>> allowed.
>>> HHH is not allowed to report on the behavior of it actual self in its
>>> own directly executed process. HHH is allowed to report on the effect
>>> of the behavior of the simulation of itself simulating DDD.
>> HHH must report on itself if its input calls it.
>> HHH does not directly simulate itself, it just executes.
>> It reports on DDD by simulating it.
> Its input cannot call its actual self that exists in an entirely
> different process.
Of course it doesn't make sense to return to a higher stack frame.
And of course a function can recursively call itself.

-- 
Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 16:52:17 -0500 schrieb olcott:
Objectively I am a genius.