Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Every HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input
Date: Sat, 31 May 2025 16:27:07 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 105
Message-ID: <101fs7c$1fan6$1@dont-email.me>
References: <Y_I_P.776479$B6tf.389685@fx02.ams4>
 <101fnnv$1dq3l$1@dont-email.me> <fFJ_P.425447$o31.114941@fx04.ams4>
 <101fpff$1eih2$1@dont-email.me> <7SJ_P.236551$RD41.79662@fx12.ams4>
 <101fqas$1eih2$2@dont-email.me> <f6K_P.1065980$wBt6.772964@fx15.ams4>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 31 May 2025 23:27:08 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c9a131a468f55446a50ed4b18f7c4193";
	logging-data="1551078"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX184q+t3tmq9MZPP9zjzrEAT"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:O8Yg3jo+F/iwEKzyv+vsN/p5rJc=
In-Reply-To: <f6K_P.1065980$wBt6.772964@fx15.ams4>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250531-4, 5/31/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean

On 5/31/2025 4:00 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Sat, 31 May 2025 15:54:52 -0500, olcott wrote:
> 
>> On 5/31/2025 3:43 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On Sat, 31 May 2025 15:40:15 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/31/2025 3:30 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 31 May 2025 15:10:39 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/31/2025 2:44 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>> Flibble's Argument: Execution vs Simulation in SHDs
>>>>>>> ====================================================
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the context of Simulating Halt Deciders (SHDs), the distinction
>>>>>>> between execution and simulation is fundamental.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Correct: External Simulation ----------------------------
>>>>>>> int main() {
>>>>>>>         HHH(DDD); // SHD simulates/analyzes DDD from the outside.
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - In this model, DDD is not being executed — it's being passed as
>>>>>>> data to HHH, which is analyzing it.
>>>>>>> - Even if DDD() (the function definition) contains a recursive call
>>>>>>> to HHH(DDD), this is just part of the code being simulated, not
>>>>>>> something that is actively executing.
>>>>>>> - Thus, the simulation can detect infinite recursion structurally,
>>>>>>> without running DDD.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Incorrect: Active Execution ---------------------------
>>>>>>> int main() {
>>>>>>>         DDD(); // Directly executes DDD, which calls HHH(DDD) during
>>>>>>>         runtime.
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> We can't simply reject this as incorrect since it is the basis of
>>>>>> every rebuttal of my work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It *is* incorrect to assume that the HHH that DDD calls is supposed
>>>>>> to report on the behavior of its caller.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - In this scenario, you’re actually running DDD, not simulating it.
>>>>>>> - If DDD() calls HHH(DDD) at runtime, you're now mixing execution
>>>>>>> and analysis in the same layer, violating the stratified model.
>>>>>>> - This results in self-referential execution that undermines
>>>>>>> decidability — a category error akin to the original halting
>>>>>>> paradox.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Key Insight -----------
>>>>>>> As long as DDD is not executing and is only being simulated by HHH,
>>>>>>> it doesn’t matter that DDD would call HHH(DDD) — because that call
>>>>>>> is never actually made. It exists in the simulated model, not in
>>>>>>> the runtime environment. Thus, structural recursion can be detected
>>>>>>> safely and treated as non-halting without triggering a paradox.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This stratification (meta → base) is what keeps the model coherent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A PhD computer scientist Eric Hehner has this same view. He explains
>>>>>> this view as the analyzer and the analyzed are in different
>>>>>> programming languages where the input cannot directly call its
>>>>>> analyzer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I only very recently discovered that it is 100% impossible to
>>>>>> actually define *an input* that does the opposite of whatever value
>>>>>> its analyzer returns.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In every conventional proof of the halting problem it has always
>>>>>> been that the decider cannot correctly report on the behavior of its
>>>>>> caller.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You will find thousands of messages posted in this forum where
>>>>>> everyone says that I am wrong because HHH does not report on the
>>>>>> behavior of the direct execution of DDD() (AKA its caller).
>>>>>
>>>>> You cannot both execute and simulate DDD as part of the same
>>>>> analysis,
>>>>> if you do that then you are WRONG.
>>>>>
>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>
>>>> int main()
>>>> {
>>>>      DDD(); // calls HHH(DDD) that simulates its own separate
>>>> }        // instance of DDD. The analysis does not begin
>>>>             // until after HHH(DDD) is called.
>>>
>>> That is a type violation (category error), i.e. WRONG.  Simulation
>>> analysis of DDD should involve no DIRECT execution of DDD WHATSOEVER.
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>
>> I know that and you know that yet no one else here knows that.
> 
> Stop lying, you don't know that at all: you are just wrong unless you
> accept that what I am saying is correct and you have been wrong until I
> told you how you were wrong.
> 
> /Flibble

You are much more correct than anyone else here besides me.

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