Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Bad faith and dishonesty
Date: Fri, 30 May 2025 16:29:09 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 101
Message-ID: <101cis6$hv12$1@dont-email.me>
References: <m99YP.725664$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>
 <1017l6l$3cerk$1@dont-email.me> <1017tr1$3drlu$5@dont-email.me>
 <1017ufm$3e54m$6@dont-email.me> <1019vm1$3u8nj$3@dont-email.me>
 <101a65n$3vsp7$1@dont-email.me> <101a86h$3vfam$6@dont-email.me>
 <101a9np$gl7$1@dont-email.me> <101bt7o$58on$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 30 May 2025 17:29:10 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="544f6bd2ceaa26c9e82aa18c0abd7bf3";
	logging-data="588834"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/JAkWBk3RX3gQ57kn7S0tV14zzkjv1ReU="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Firefox/91.0 SeaMonkey/2.53.18.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:+9hRkTm+C70hAtfvNdhQHqrHP1k=
In-Reply-To: <101bt7o$58on$1@dont-email.me>

On 30/05/2025 10:19, vallor wrote:
> On Thu, 29 May 2025 19:40:57 +0100, Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk>
> wrote in <101a9np$gl7$1@dont-email.me>:
> 
>> On 29/05/2025 19:14, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/29/2025 12:40 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>> On 29/05/2025 16:49, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/28/2025 4:16 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>>> On 28/05/2025 22:05, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/28/2025 2:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> My only aim is to show that the conventional halting problem proof
>>>>>>>> is wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But why would you care whether or not the proof is wrong when
>>>>>>> you've gone on record (multiple times) as stating that what the
>>>>>>> proof proves is correct?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It would certainly earn him a place in history's footnotes, which
>>>>>> might well be considered sufficient motive. But he'd have to be able
>>>>>> to explain why he's right, which of course he can't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> See my post: [Disagreeing with tautologies is always incorrect]
>>>>
>>>> And it seems you still can't.
>>>>
>>>> I have already read your article "Disagreeing with tautologies is
>>>> always incorrect"[1], which completely fails to explain your proof.
>>>
>>> Maybe you have no idea what a tautology is.
>>
>> Maybe you think that asserting something is true is sufficient to make
>> it true. It isn't.
>>
>>
>>> Its the same thing as a self-evident truth.
>>
>> Maybe you think that asserting something is self-evidently true is
>> sufficient to make it self-evidently true. It isn't.
>>
>>> <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
>>>
>>> It is a tautology that any input D to termination analyzer H that
>>> *would never stop running unless aborted*
>>> DOES SPECIFY NON-TERMINATING BEHAVIOR.
>>
>> But in making that claim you assume that you correctly know the
>> termination behaviour of D.
>>
>> I can easily sketch out a program that your HHH analyser would
>> impatiently abort as non-terminating, but which could conceivably stop
>> running this year, next year, sometime... or never.
> 
> Was wondering when someone would mention that...what does his HHH()
> do with arbitrary programs?
> 
> $ cat ddd.c
> #include <stdio.h>
> 
> void ddd(int r)
>      {
>      r--;
>      if(r <= 0) return;
>      fprintf(stderr,"calling ddd(%d)\n",r);
>      ddd(r);
>      fprintf(stderr,"returning, r=%d\n",r);
>      return;
>      }
> 
> 
> int main(void)
> {
> 
> ddd(50);
> 
> return 0;
> }
> 
> I'd bet his HHH() would say this is non-terminating.
> 

It does what it does with DDD:  it simulates the program while monitoring the simulation progress, 
looking for what it considers to be signs of non-halting behaviour.  If it spots what it thinks is 
non-halting behaviour, it decides non-halting.  If the simulation halts, it decides halts. 
Otherwise it will continue simulating indefinitely.

@Richard:  so you cannot make HHH decide non-halting simply by looping for a long long time, hoping 
HHH will get fed up!  That would just result in HHH simulating for a corresponding long long time. 
You need to feed it a program that halts, but matches one of his non-halting behaviour tests.  For 
example DDD.

@vallor:  so with your example, ddd halts, and I don't believe any of HHH's tests would match, so 
HHH would simulate your ddd to completion and decide it halts.

Mike.