Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Every HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2025 09:21:43 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 64
Message-ID: <101rgi6$1d34j$4@dont-email.me>
References: <bvI_P.425446$o31.351189@fx04.ams4>
 <101fkr6$1db6f$1@dont-email.me> <101hd2e$21nfj$1@dont-email.me>
 <101jbrq$31e9g$1@dont-email.me> <101ot6n$mnm6$1@dont-email.me>
 <101pn1n$smpc$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2025 09:21:43 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3bf83ed7aaef0023d36761aba965dace";
	logging-data="1477779"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+gyz1FRU7wF84oHhQft1pc"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ibqb96JrIKqsEuD0/0gN7N+vhVU=
Content-Language: nl, en-GB
In-Reply-To: <101pn1n$smpc$2@dont-email.me>

Op 04.jun.2025 om 17:00 schreef olcott:
> On 6/4/2025 2:39 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-06-02 05:12:26 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> 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*
>>
>> If it does then the "input" is not DDD, which specifies a halting
>> behaviour if HHH is a decider.
>>
> 
> You can say these things only by making
> sure to ignore the verified facts.
> 
> HHH1(DDD) emulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD)
> that emulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD)
> that emulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD)
And a correct analysis of the code shows that this is only a finite 
recursion, because the input for HHH includes the code of Halt7.c, where 
it specified that the program aborts and halts.
That HHH does not see that specification does not change the 
specification. It is childish to think that things that are not seen do 
not exist, in particular when there are other ways to observe them.