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: Mon, 2 Jun 2025 10:57:53 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 69
Message-ID: <101khm1$3bfvj$9@dont-email.me>
References: <bvI_P.425446$o31.351189@fx04.ams4>
 <101fkr6$1db6f$1@dont-email.me> <101hd2e$21nfj$1@dont-email.me>
 <101jbrq$31e9g$1@dont-email.me>
 <ac29c0ee1ff4d18da25350ef896f8697fd626acb@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2025 17:57:54 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="01672d8ae9aa1e0fec727857b1cb5419";
	logging-data="3522547"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/gpgBc/Kn81ASutOg9vmZY"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:KfvZiO7Rt3RP9LlWLU4cpFN31lM=
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250602-4, 6/2/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <ac29c0ee1ff4d18da25350ef896f8697fd626acb@i2pn2.org>

On 6/2/2025 6:04 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/2/25 1:12 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/1/2025 6:20 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2025-05-31 19:21:10 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 5/31/2025 2:11 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>> Olcott is doing this:
>>>>>
>>>>> int main()
>>>>> {
>>>>> DDD(); // DDD calls HHH
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> This is incorrect as it is a category (type) error in the form of
>>>>> conflation of the EXECUTION of DDD with the SIMULATION of DDD: to
>>>>> completely and correctly simulate/analyse DDD there must be no 
>>>>> execution
>>>>> of DDD prior to the simulation of DDD.
>>>>>
>>>>> Olcott should be doing this:
>>>>>
>>>>> int main()
>>>>> {
>>>>> HHH(DDD);
>>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> I would have left it there except that many dozens of
>>>> reviewers have pointed out that they believe that HHH
>>>> is supposed to report on the behavior of its caller.
>>>
>>> A halt decider is required to report on the computation it is asked
>>> about. There is no requirement that a halt decider knows or can find
>>> out whether it is called by the program about which is required to
>>> report. Consequently, whether the computaton asked about calls the
>>> decider is irrelevant.
>>>
>>
>> void DDD()
>> {
>>    HHH(DDD);
>>    return;
>> }
>>
>> The *input* to simulating termination analyzer HHH(DDD)
>> specifies recursive simulation that can never reach its
>> *simulated "return" instruction final halt state*
>>
>> *Every rebuttal to this changes the words*
>>
>>
> 
> No, it specifies FINITE recursive simulation, as HHH is defined to be a 
> DECIDER, that must always  return after finite time.
> 

Unlike most people here I do understand that not
possibly reaching a final halt state *is* non-halting behavior.

> Your world is just filled with contradictions and lies.
> 
> The problem is your words are just meaningless, as you admit you don't 
> use there actual meaning as terms-of-art.
> 
> Sorry, but you are just showing how stupid you are.


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