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: Fri, 6 Jun 2025 12:28:50 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 126
Message-ID: <101v8gi$2d3v6$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> <101u803$251rf$2@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 19:28:51 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2b1d5bc16a4dc23d074aaf02c68974e0";
	logging-data="2527206"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19BzKYaavaq1HJOp/6hjMsM"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:AU+Fb3JMt5CRS+ekoITLiFrjaRg=
In-Reply-To: <101u803$251rf$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250606-4, 6/6/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean

On 6/6/2025 3:13 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> 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.

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}

DDD emulated by HHH specifies
executed HHH emulates DDD that calls emulated HHH(DDD)
that emulates DDD that calls emulated HHH(DDD)
that emulates DDD that calls emulated HHH(DDD)
that emulates DDD that calls emulated HHH(DDD)
that emulates DDD that calls emulated HHH(DDD)...

Where do we get to reaching the emulated "return"
instruction final halt state?




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