Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!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: Fri, 23 May 2025 19:30:42 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 95
Message-ID: <100r3vi$b5vm$1@dont-email.me>
References: <Ms4XP.801347$BFJ.668081@fx13.ams4>
 <100kt0c$2tae8$3@dont-email.me> <100ktr7$2reaa$1@dont-email.me>
 <100l09v$2tae8$5@dont-email.me> <100l1ov$2ul3j$1@dont-email.me>
 <100l3jh$2v0e9$1@dont-email.me> <100l5c8$2ul3j$2@dont-email.me>
 <100l75g$2vpq3$1@dont-email.me> <100l887$2ul3i$2@dont-email.me>
 <100l9gh$30aak$1@dont-email.me> <100lc4o$30pgm$1@dont-email.me>
 <100ld1u$312c9$1@dont-email.me> <100lg4g$31jt3$1@dont-email.me>
 <100lkdv$32ib3$1@dont-email.me> <100lmif$32v06$1@dont-email.me>
 <100lmp3$32ven$1@dont-email.me> <100m319$38k55$2@dont-email.me>
 <87jz69xlpx.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <100mder$39slu$2@dont-email.me>
 <100oipb$3oge1$1@dont-email.me> <87a573xz0s.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <875xhrtbpr.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <100r2mb$b2b1$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 24 May 2025 02:30:43 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f513fb0f9fd54277dcf2467a994ccda0";
	logging-data="366582"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/iIpo++d6Zyp+9hlVxthjw"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Gezktn6N+PzE6xxImFDocv++c1c=
In-Reply-To: <100r2mb$b2b1$1@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250523-4, 5/23/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Bytes: 6127

On 5/23/2025 7:08 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 23/05/2025 19:37, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> writes:
>>> Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:
>> [...]
>>> And the big picture is that this can be done because false is the
>>> correct halting decision for some halting computations.  He has said
>>> this explicitly (as I have posted before) but he has also explained it
>>> in words:
>>>
>>> | When-so-ever a halt decider correctly determines that its input would
>>> | never halt unless forced to halt by this halt decider this halt
>>> | decider has made a correct not-halting determination.
>>
>> Hmm.  I don't read that the way you do.  Did I miss something?
>>
>> It assumes that the input is a non-halting computation ("its input
>> would never halt") and asserts that, in certain circumstances,
>> his mythical halt decider correctly determines that the input
>> is non-halting.
>>
>> When his mythical halt decider correctly determines that its input
>> doesn't halt, it has made a correct non-halting determination.
>> It's just a tautology.
> 
> You're reading it the way most people would, and in the way I said 
> Sipser would be interpreting the oft-quoted "Sipser quote".  I don't 
> think you've missed anything particularly.
> 
> I suppose Ben quoted PO saying this, because PO /uses/ it to justify 
> that a particular /halting/ computation will never halt,  PO's HHH 
> simulates DDD (which halts) but before DDD halts it spots a pattern in 
> the simulation, and announces non-halting.  

In other words you expect that the HHH that DD calls
to report on the behavior of its caller?

How the f-ck can it do that?

int main()
{
   DD(); // The HHH that DD calls cannot report on
}       // the behavior of its caller
         // that is simply not the way that computation works

> "Eh?" I hear you say!  PO 
> claims HHH has "correctly determined that DDD would never halt" and so 
> is correct to decide non-halting.  His "proof" that it is right to 
> decide non-halting is his "when-so-ever.." quote, which broadly matches 
> the Sipser quote.
> 
> So the problem is not so much the "when-so-ever.." words themselves [or 
> the words of Sipser's quote], but understanding how PO is so thoroughly 
> misinterpreting/misapplying them.  How can PO believe HHH has "correctly 
> determined the DDD will never halt" when DDD demonstrably halts?
> 
> Rather that try to explain that, I'll suggest that it really doesn't 
> matter exactly /why/ PO is confused.  It's enough that his claims are 
> obvious nonsense, and readers of a certain level see this pretty much 
> straight away.  People who post corrections and try to help PO /see/ his 
> mistakes and change his mind are completely wasting their time, although 
> of course it's entirely theirs to waste!
> 
> As to whether Ben's PO quote was helpful supporting material for his 
> remark that PO believes it's right to decide non-halting for certain 
> halting computations - you'll have to decide that.  [PO /does/ think 
> it's right to decide non-halting for certain halting computations, 
> although PO's conception of halting does not match yours or mine.]
> 
>>
>> This kind of determination can be made in specific cases (but of
>> course not in general).  A simple program like `int main(void)
>> { while (1); }` is non-halting.  If I run it, it will never halt
>> unless I force it to halt, e.g. by typing Control-C or pulling the
>> power plug.
>>
>> (I'm assuming that "when-so-ever" means the same as "when".)
> 
> Yeah, one of PO's affected wordings that he likes.  I read it as 
> "whenever".
> 
> If you likewise ran PO's DDD(DDD) you would not have time to enter ^C 
> because it would complete in short order.  His HHH which is simulating 
> the computation can get its abort in, because the simulation is step-by- 
> step, and after each step HHH gets to choose whether to continue or 
> abort the simulation.
> 
> 
> Mike.
> 


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