Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_Analysis_of_Flibble=E2=80=99s_Latest=3A_Detecting_v?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?s=2E_Simulating_Infinite_Recursion_ZFC?=
Date: Wed, 21 May 2025 14:47:13 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 107
Message-ID: <100lak1$30aak$5@dont-email.me>
References: <Ms4XP.801347$BFJ.668081@fx13.ams4>
 <95db078e80b2868ed15a9a9a2af0280d96234a3a@i2pn2.org>
 <100jo18$2mhfd$1@dont-email.me> <100jpv9$2m0ln$4@dont-email.me>
 <100kt0c$2tae8$3@dont-email.me> <100l9p2$30b4k$2@dont-email.me>
 <aYpXP.322527$JJT6.10213@fx16.ams4>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 21 May 2025 21:47:19 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7faeabb3f4a2e362069c5f0f1728441c";
	logging-data="3156308"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18jm7SnTwFyXrL/1rXfMIOb"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:djlnh6+aYilbR4dRzLlsQ42QA0Q=
In-Reply-To: <aYpXP.322527$JJT6.10213@fx16.ams4>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250521-10, 5/21/2025), Outbound message

On 5/21/2025 2:37 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Wed, 21 May 2025 21:32:49 +0200, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> 
>> Op 21.mei.2025 om 17:54 schreef olcott:
>>> On 5/21/2025 12:56 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>> On 21/05/2025 06:23, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/20/2025 9:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/20/25 3:10 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>>>> Conclusion: ----------- Flibble sharpens his argument by clarifying
>>>>>>> that SHDs are not required to simulate infinite execution. They are
>>>>>>> expected to *detect* infinite behavior structurally and respond in
>>>>>>> finite time. This keeps them within the bounds of what a decider
>>>>>>> must be and strengthens the philosophical coherence of his
>>>>>>> redefinition of the Halting Problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But you can't "redefine" the Halting Problem and then say you have
>>>>>> answered the Halting Problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you mean like how ZFC resolved Russell's Paradox thus converting
>>>>> "set theory" into "naive set theory"?
>>>>
>>>> No, because there is no paradox in the Halting Problem. A proof by
>>>> contradiction is not a paradox.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> A self-contradictory input and a proof by contradiction are not the
>>> same thing. A proof by contradiction would conclude that "this sentence
>>> is not true" is true because it cannot be proved false.
>>>
>>> ZFC shows how a whole way of examining a problem can be tossed out as
>>> incorrect and replaced with a whole new way.
>>>
>>> The HP proofs are based on defining a D that can actually do the
>>> opposite of whatever value that H returns.
>>> No such D can actually exist.
>>>
>>>> A better parallel would be Cantor's proof that there are uncountably
>>>> many real numbers, or Euclid's proof that there is no largest prime.
>>>> Both of these proofs make a single assumption and then derive a
>>>> contradiction, thus showing that the assumption must be false. No
>>>> paradoxes need apply.
>>>>
>>>> In the Halting Problem's case, the assumption is that a UNIVERSAL
>>>> algorithm exists for determining whether any arbitrary program halts
>>>> when applied to given arbitrary input. The argument derives a
>>>> contradiction showing the assumption to be false.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Likewise with Russell's Paradox it is assumed that there can be a set
>>> of all sets that do not contain themselves as members. This is
>>> "resolved" as nonsense.
>>>
>>>> Whatever you think your HHH determines, we know from Turing that it
>>>> doesn't determine it for arbitrary programs with arbitrary input. It
>>>> therefore has no bearing whatsoever on the Halting Problem.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> void DDD()
>>> {
>>>     HHH(DDD);
>>>     return;
>>> }
>>>
>>> DDD correctly simulated by HHH DOES NOT HALT.
>>>
>>>
>> Verifiable counter-factual.
>>
>> The simulation of DDD does not reach a natural end only because HHH
>> prevents it to halt by a premature abort.
>> Due this premature abort HHH misses the part of the input that specifies
>> the conditional abort in Halt7.c, which specifies that the program
>> halts. If a simulator would not abort this input, it would reach the
>> natural end of the program. Proven by direct execution and world-class
>> simulators. But HHH has a bug, which makes that it aborts before it can
>> see that the input halts, only because its programmer dreamed of an
>> infinite recursion, where there is only a finite recursion.
>> Come out of rebuttal mode, which makes that you do not pay enough
>> attention to this logic, but reject it immediately when it disturbs your
>> dreams, after which you only repeat the clueless claims.
> 
> You are making the classic mistake of conflating the decider halting with
> the program being analysed halting.
> 
> /Flibble

Its even worse than that.
HHH is correct to abort its simulation of DDD even when
we include HHH as an aspect of its input DDD thus conflating
HHH and DDD together.

<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
     If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
     input D until *H correctly determines that its simulated D*
     *would never stop running unless aborted* then

Unless DDD aborts its simulated DDD even HHH()
(DDD and HHH conflated together)
never stops running.


-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer