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 11:20:51 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 89
Message-ID: <101sg53$1kh2e$9@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>
 <0b60c5dc1bb43a603e8071dbf6b7f7f1eb395130@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2025 18:20:52 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7a75ad72c7c9f6fd0ca7001367c21b2a";
	logging-data="1721422"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+02mfpbApdERJrRIAx9EiM"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:X9e8uT9E/fR9n/mISgblRyvppBw=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <0b60c5dc1bb43a603e8071dbf6b7f7f1eb395130@i2pn2.org>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250605-6, 6/5/2025), Outbound message

On 6/5/2025 6:03 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/4/25 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.
>>
> 
> No, Russell's Paradox showed a fundamental error in "Naive" Set Theory. 
> ZFC did nothing with Russell's Paradox, except to define a system that 
> can't support it, but still was able to handle a large portion of the 
> problems that the original theory was trying to be used on.
> 

ZFC ruled that those aspects of naive set theory that
allowed Russell's Paradox to exist were incoherent.

int main()
{
   DDD(); // The HHH(DDD) that this DDD calls cannot see its caller
}

Likewise PO has ruled that the counter-example input
to the halting problem cannot actually do the opposite
of whatever value that its decider returns.

The above DDD *IS NOT AN INPUT* to the HHH(DDD) that it calls.

> Until you can show a similar problem with the definitions from 
> computation theory, you don't have something to stand on.
> 
> The fact that some things turn out to be not-computable is not such a 
> problem, in fact after it was discovered that this problem was non- 
> computable, mathematics figured out that there had to be uncomputable 
> problems by a simple counting argument.
> 
> If you think non-computable functions ARE a problem, and you want to 
> define some alternate theory of computations, go ahead. You then have 
> teh second half of what ZFC did, show that your system solves the 
> problems that the original theory was being used on.
> 
> Since, it is clear you don't understand the purpose that Computation 
> Theory was developed for (Hint, it isn't about programs on modern 
> digital computers, as it predates their existance), this will be hard 
> for you.


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