Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: My reviewers think that halt deciders must report on the behavior
 of their caller
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2025 10:46:56 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 116
Message-ID: <101se5g$1kh2e$1@dont-email.me>
References: <101nq32$99vd$1@dont-email.me> <101or6b$maj5$1@dont-email.me>
 <101pq02$ta6v$4@dont-email.me>
 <15abd00ec5b1e4a13892e85ee6ace9ac10d92c56@i2pn2.org>
 <101qu8f$15bg8$3@dont-email.me> <101qugc$15d1h$3@dont-email.me>
 <101r0au$15bg8$7@dont-email.me> <101r10f$15d1h$6@dont-email.me>
 <101r355$1adut$2@dont-email.me> <101r3kd$15d1h$8@dont-email.me>
 <101r6mb$1adut$5@dont-email.me> <101rfci$1cvpu$1@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 17:46:57 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7a75ad72c7c9f6fd0ca7001367c21b2a";
	logging-data="1721422"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/PbBepwN2W6QV1RgPhu/l+"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:I9esMefZgX3Xxc/ndVdh9rf1QzM=
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250605-6, 6/5/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <101rfci$1cvpu$1@dont-email.me>

On 6/5/2025 2:01 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 05.jun.2025 om 06:33 schreef olcott:
>> On 6/4/2025 10:41 PM, dbush wrote:
>>> On 6/4/2025 11:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/4/2025 9:56 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>> On 6/4/2025 10:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/4/2025 9:13 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/4/2025 10:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/4/2025 8:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/4/25 11:50 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/4/2025 2:04 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-06-03 21:39:46 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> They all say that HHH must report on the behavior of
>>>>>>>>>>>> direct execution of DDD()
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No, they don't say that. A halting decider (and a partial 
>>>>>>>>>>> halting
>>>>>>>>>>> decider when it reports) must report whether the direct 
>>>>>>>>>>> execution
>>>>>>>>>>> of the computation asked about terminates. Unless that 
>>>>>>>>>>> computation
>>>>>>>>>>> happens to be DDD() it must report about another behaviour 
>>>>>>>>>>> instead
>>>>>>>>>>> of DDD().
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> yet never bother to notice that the directly executed DDD() is
>>>>>>>>>>>> the caller of HHH(DDD).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> To say that nobody has noticed that is a lie. Perhaps they 
>>>>>>>>>>> have not
>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned what is irrelevant to whatever they said. In 
>>>>>>>>>>> particular,
>>>>>>>>>>> whether DDD() calls HHH(DDD) is irrelevant to the requirement 
>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>> a halting decider must report about a direct exection of the
>>>>>>>>>>> computation the input specifies.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *People have ignored this for 90 years*
>>>>>>>>>> *People have ignored this for 90 years*
>>>>>>>>>> *People have ignored this for 90 years*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The only possible way that HHH can report on the
>>>>>>>>>> direct execution of DDD() is for HHH to report on
>>>>>>>>>> the behavior of its caller:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It *IS* a fact that to be correct, it needs to answer about the 
>>>>>>>>> direct executiom of the program that input represents.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That is DEFINITION.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Likewise with the definition of Russell's Paradox
>>>>>>>> until ZFC showed that this definition is complete
>>>>>>>> nonsense.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But unlike Russel's Paradox, which showed a contradiction in the 
>>>>>>> axioms of naive set theory, there is no contradiction in the 
>>>>>>> axioms of computation theory.  It follows from those axioms that 
>>>>>>> no H exists that performs the below mapping, as you have 
>>>>>>> *explicitly* agreed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>> {
>>>>>>    DDD(); // comp theory does not allow HHH to
>>>>>> }        // report on the behavior of its caller.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> int main()
>>>>> {
>>>>>     DDD();     // this
>>>>>     HHH(DDD);  // is not the caller of this: this 
>>>>> is }              // asking what the above will do
>>>>
>>>> That is just not the way that computation actually works.
>>>
>>> Sure it is.  We don't care how the mapping is generated, only that it 
>>> is generated.
>>>
>>
>> There is not enough information in the input to
>> know how the caller works.
> 
> Counterfactual. The input is a pointer to the start of a function.

Prove it.

> The 
> code of that function has addresses to other functions used in the 
> program, including the code that aborts and halts.
> All information is there. But the programmer of HHH decided to make HHH 
> such that it does not see all the information. It is a choice to analyse 
> only the code of DDD itself. A wrong choice. It should also analyse the 
> code of the functions called by DDD. Including the conditional branch 
> instructions within the functions called by DDD.
> 
>>
>> Also there is not enough information in any integer
>> to predict who the president will be.
>>
>> char* WhatIsTheNameOfThePresidentIn2030(int x);
> 
> Irrelevant, because the pointer given to HHH is enough to find all 
> information, which is proven by the fact that world-class simulator give 
> the correct result when given exactly the same pointer as input.


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