Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: My reviewers think that halt deciders must report on the behavior
 of their caller
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2025 10:13:56 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 101
Message-ID: <101u803$251rf$2@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>
 <101se5g$1kh2e$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2025 10:13:56 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e0264a7f49952eafc22259eeb7677921";
	logging-data="2262895"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/7HsLWiYyvA33Pu4YiNX93"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:N4Mk6VcPgwV/yh/49Cm01HNGmE4=
In-Reply-To: <101se5g$1kh2e$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: nl, en-GB
Bytes: 5350

Op 05.jun.2025 om 17:46 schreef olcott:
> 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.
> 
It seems you have no idea of the C language.
In HHH(DDD), DDD is a parameter. This parameter is the input for HHH. 
DDD is also a function. In C a function, when used as a parameter, is a 
pointer.

I assume this is another clever way to distract the attention from the 
fact that your claims are counterfactual.