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 19:38:03 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 73
Message-ID: <100r4db$b5vm$2@dont-email.me>
References: <Ms4XP.801347$BFJ.668081@fx13.ams4>
 <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>
 <87msb2x39x.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 24 May 2025 02:38:03 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f513fb0f9fd54277dcf2467a994ccda0";
	logging-data="366582"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/mACyTATQQdRrbxJ69qX17"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:6draAEBjqcNYMYcdMtFfN0TMk1g=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250523-4, 5/23/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <87msb2x39x.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5117

On 5/23/2025 7:26 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Maybe it makes less sense out of the context it was posted in.  This was
> when he was being less obtuse.  The computation in question only halts
> because it is halted by the decider on which it is built.  It is a
> halting computation, but according to PO it can reported as not halting
> because of what would happen if it were not halted by the decider from
> which it is derived.
> 

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 ASSHOLE?

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

> Subsequent wordings have all been about hiding this.  Just prior to this
> wording was the even more explicit claim that non-halting is correct
> because of what "would happen if line 15 were commented out".  It's
> always been about what would be the correct decision were the
> computation not what it actually is.
> 

The input to HHH(DD) SPECIFIES A NON-HALTING
SEQUENCE OF CONFIGURATIONS IN THAT DD SIMULATED
BY HHH CANNOT POSSIBLY STOP RUNNING UNLESS ABORTED.
This is a tautology you damned liar.

>> I suppose Ben quoted PO saying this, because PO /uses/ it to justify that a
>> particular /halting/ computation will never halt,
> 
> He may be doing that now, but he used to use this form of words to
> justify why non-halting is the correct result for some halting
> computations.  Obviously, to keep people talking he has had to scramble
> to get away from what he has said in the past without repudiating it.
> No crank likes admit they were ever wrong.
> 


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