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 16:38:41 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 128
Message-ID: <101fst1$1fe6c$1@dont-email.me>
References: <Y_I_P.776479$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>
 <101fs7c$1fan6$1@dont-email.me> <2yK_P.1543387$4AM6.206961@fx17.ams4>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 31 May 2025 23:38:42 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c9a131a468f55446a50ed4b18f7c4193";
	logging-data="1554636"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18JNdsyAlOH52D8ycBSgdhr"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:elj+K+xtovKeVTx4Tpbcn5jJZ28=
In-Reply-To: <2yK_P.1543387$4AM6.206961@fx17.ams4>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250531-4, 5/31/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean

On 5/31/2025 4:30 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Sat, 31 May 2025 16:27:07 -0500, olcott wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> You are wrong unless you accept that you cannot simulate DDD if DDD is
> already executing.
> 
> /Flibble

If you know object oriented programming then you
understand the idea of distinct object instances.

There are three different instances of DDD when
DDD() is directly executed from main().

I have fully operational code that proves that the
directly executed DDD() invokes HHH(DDD) that does
simulate its input.

https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c

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