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: Fri, 23 May 2025 22:29:33 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 110
Message-ID: <100reet$giqs$1@dont-email.me>
References: <Ms4XP.801347$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$1@dont-email.me>
 <87msb2x39x.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <100rbkf$g939$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 24 May 2025 05:29:33 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f513fb0f9fd54277dcf2467a994ccda0";
	logging-data="543580"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+X6uJFxQJiureCyK1hcjcR"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:zQ8vm6TyNPwDOxIjH7CgkQogPw8=
In-Reply-To: <100rbkf$g939$1@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250523-4, 5/23/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US

On 5/23/2025 9:41 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 24/05/2025 01:26, 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.
> 
> "The computation in question only halts because it is halted by the 
> decider on which it is built."
> 
> That is presumably you speaking in PO's voice, but my first reading was 
> as you saying it!
> 
> Of course, the computation in question [DDD(DDD)] is at no point 
> "halted" by anything, and halts quite happily all on by itself!

That is not true and you may not know it.
and you didn't even say it correctly.
DDD() takes no params.

int main()
{
   DDD(); // cannot possibly stop running unless
}        // HHH(DDD) aborts its simulation

>>
>> 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.
> 
> Yes, current posters are right on top of that, calling it out as 
> "changing the input".  I'm not sure PO realises he is changing the 
> input, and if he does, whether he understands /why/ that is completely 
> out of order. 

<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

Doesn't actually change the input.
Is the term "hypothetical" OVER-YOUR-HEAD?

D correctly reports on what the behavior would be if a
*HYPOTHETICAL H* never aborted the simulation of its input.

THAT IS THE BEHAVIOR THAT THIS INPUT SPECIFIES.

> PO has recently started talking about what happens when 
> we hypothetically "change the HHH/DDD input /pair/ " so that makes me 
> think he does now explicitly realise that's what's going on, but not why 
> it's a mistake.
> 

Everyone here including you believes that HHH
is not allowed to report on the actual behavior
that its input actually specifies and instead
MUST report on the behavior of its caller.

int main()
{
   DDD();  // HHH cannot report on the behavior of its caller.
}

> As ever, pointing it out to PO, however explicitly and clearly, has no 
> effect on what PO believes.
> 
> 
> Mike.
> 



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