Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Bad faith and dishonesty
Date: Wed, 28 May 2025 13:38:13 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 172
Message-ID: <1017l6l$3cerk$1@dont-email.me>
References: <m99YP.725664$B6tf.610565@fx02.ams4>
 <100uct4$184ak$1@dont-email.me> <100v9ta$1d5lg$7@dont-email.me>
 <1011eai$1urdm$1@dont-email.me> <10121bt$22da5$4@dont-email.me>
 <8bb5266e35845a4d8f2feb618c0c18629c04e4e7@i2pn2.org>
 <1012oj1$278f8$1@dont-email.me>
 <1196d9de2e2aebc1b6d1a85047192e8ea1aeb1f1@i2pn2.org>
 <10137lv$2djeu$1@dont-email.me> <ewIZP.135645$vK4b.131815@fx09.ams4>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 28 May 2025 20:38:14 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f5dbd82c61536f260449484ef7088f69";
	logging-data="3554164"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1935mXOSf7DNMgpBIv5gMdO"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:sex/+EGjxmWPFEq8ZQbU9b1yct8=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250528-4, 5/28/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <ewIZP.135645$vK4b.131815@fx09.ams4>

On 5/28/2025 1:23 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Mon, 26 May 2025 21:22:55 -0500, olcott wrote:
> 
>> On 5/26/2025 9:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/26/25 6:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/26/2025 3:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/26/25 11:29 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/26/2025 5:04 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2025-05-25 14:36:26 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/25/2025 1:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2025-05-24 01:20:18 +0000, Mr Flibble said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So much bad faith and dishonesty shown in this forum that myself
>>>>>>>>>> and Peter Olcott have to fight against.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Everything here seems to be dishonesty and protests against
>>>>>>>>> dishonesty.
>>>>>>>>> If you could remove all dishonesty the protests woud stop, too,
>>>>>>>>> and nothing would be left.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _DDD()
>>>>>>>> [00002192] 55             push ebp [00002193] 8bec           mov
>>>>>>>> ebp,esp [00002195] 6892210000     push 00002192 [0000219a]
>>>>>>>> e833f4ffff     call 000015d2  // call HHH [0000219f]
>>>>>>>> 83c404         add esp,+04 [000021a2] 5d             pop ebp
>>>>>>>> [000021a3] c3             ret Size in bytes:(0018) [000021a3]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then acknowledge that DDD simulated by HHH according to the rules
>>>>>>>> of the x86 language cannot possibly reach its own "ret"
>>>>>>>> instruction final halt state.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have never claimed that your HHH can simulate DDD to from the
>>>>>>> beginning to end.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am asking you to affirm that I am correct about this point.
>>>>>> DDD simulated by HHH according to the rules of the x86 language
>>>>>> cannot possibly reach its own "ret" instruction final halt state,
>>>>>> thus is correctly rejected as non-halting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> But you have to affirm first that HHH *IS* a program that does that,
>>>>> and can't be "changed" to some other program, and that DDD is
>>>>> "completed" to contain that same code.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, once you define that HHH is such a program,
>>>>
>>>> Unless HHH(DDD) aborts its emulation of DDD then DDD() and HHH() never
>>>> stop running proving that the input to HHH(DDD) SPECIFIES
>>>> NON-TERMINATING BEHAVIOR THAT MUST BE ABORTED.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> But since HHH(DDD) DOES abort its emulation of DDD, it is a fact that
>>> DDD() will halt.
>>>
>>>
>> *Termination analyzers PREDICT behavior dip-shit* It is a tautology that
>> every input that must be aborted to prevent the infinite simulation of
>> this input DOES SPECIFY NON-HALTING BEHAVIOR.
> 
> Olcott is claiming:
> 
>> “My SHD detects that the program (e.g., `DDD()`) has an *infinite
> recursion structure* and therefore halts early with a decision: non-
> halting.”
> 
> This would mean:
> 
> * SHD *does not simulate* the entire execution.
> * Instead, it performs **analysis** (akin to symbolic execution, static
> control flow, or syntactic pattern detection).
> * It concludes **before execution completes** that the input program will
> never halt.
> 
> This now resembles modern **termination analyzers** used in:
> 
> * Formal methods (e.g., Coq, Agda)
> * CompCert (verified C compiler)
> * Model checking and static analysis tools
> 
> ---
> 
> ### 🔍 What This Means
> 
> 1. **SHD becomes a partial analyzer.**
> 
>     * It is no longer a classical halt decider (which must be total).
>     * It becomes a **sound** (never wrongly claims halting) but
> **incomplete** (may fail to decide in some cases) analyzer.
> 
> 2. **Detection ≠ Simulation**
> 
>     * Damon’s original critique presumes SHD reaches a contradiction
> through simulation.
>     * But if SHD performs structural detection of recursive constructs
> (e.g., unguarded self-calls), it’s operating at the **language or AST
> level**, not the runtime level.
> 
> 3. **Olcott's Argument Gets Stronger**
> 
>     * If SHD statically proves a path leads to infinite recursion, then
> halting early is valid.
>     * This kind of structural non-termination detection is used in many
> safe languages and compilers.
> 
> ---
> 
> ### ⚖️ Remaining Limitations
> 
> However, the halting problem in its classical sense is **not about some
> programs** — it is about **all** programs:
> 
>> There exists no algorithm that, for every program $P$ and input $x$,
> decides whether $P(x)$ halts.
> 
> Olcott’s SHD does **not** refute this proof, because:
> 
> * SHD avoids the contradiction **by not accepting certain inputs** (i.e.,
> pathological ones like `DDD()`).
> * This is not a **refutation**, but a **domain restriction** — similar to
> how total languages avoid undecidability by design.
> 
> ---
> 
> ### ✅ Summary
> 
> | Topic            | Classical View                       | Olcott’s
> SHD                                |
> | ---------------- | ------------------------------------ |
> ------------------------------------------- |
> | Simulation       | Required to define behavior          | Avoided via
> structural detection            |
> | Decider behavior | Total — must decide for all programs | Partial — only
> works on analyzable inputs   |
> | DDD self-call    | Causes contradiction in proof        | Detected as
> infinite by SHD, then rejected  |
> | Result           | Proof of undecidability holds        | SHD reframes
> the problem, doesn't refute it |
> 
> ---
> 
> ### 🧩 Final Assessment
> 
>> **If Olcott’s SHD uses static analysis to detect infinite recursion**,
> it behaves like modern verification tools and total language analyzers —
> which are **sound** but **incomplete**.
> 
> That’s valid and **useful** — but it does **not refute the Halting Problem
> proof**. It sidesteps the contradiction **by changing the semantics** of
> what inputs are allowed and how decisions are made.
> 
> So, Olcott’s SHD is **not wrong**, but its scope is misunderstood: it’s a
> *partial, structural halting predictor*, not a general refutation of
> undecidability.

My only aim is to show that the conventional halting
problem proof is wrong.

When HHH is required to report on the behavior that
its input actually specifies then the counter-example
input to the Halting Problem proofs is correctly
rejected as non-halting.

When HHH is required to report on behavior
OTHER THAN THE BEHAVIOR THAT ITS INPUT ACTUAL SPECIFIES
then the requirement is incorrect.


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