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 15:07:10 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 53
Message-ID: <101vhpe$2egad$4@dont-email.me>
References: <101nq32$99vd$1@dont-email.me> <101or6b$maj5$1@dont-email.me>
 <101pq02$ta6v$4@dont-email.me> <101ri5b$1drjj$1@dont-email.me>
 <101sf41$1kh2e$6@dont-email.me> <101u89n$251rg$2@dont-email.me>
 <101v8o8$2d3v6$3@dont-email.me>
 <da44bf381e72fe02108d30497b7a53a3c640119a@i2pn2.org>
 <101vf33$2egad$2@dont-email.me>
 <b42c4ab31a56ccf59a75847131ec56c4a7715f4c@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2025 22:07:11 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2b1d5bc16a4dc23d074aaf02c68974e0";
	logging-data="2572621"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX190/i2qABxBvXj7dNRnvVer"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:smuvU26KJBYlF+bkbApkc0XSO6k=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250606-4, 6/6/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <b42c4ab31a56ccf59a75847131ec56c4a7715f4c@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US

On 6/6/2025 2:30 PM, joes wrote:
> Am Fri, 06 Jun 2025 14:21:07 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>> On 6/6/2025 2:18 PM, joes wrote:
>>> Am Fri, 06 Jun 2025 12:32:56 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>> On 6/6/2025 3:19 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>> Op 05.jun.2025 om 18:03 schreef olcott:
>>>>>> On 6/5/2025 2:48 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2025-06-04 15:50:25 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>>>>>>>> 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:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The relevant question is not what HHH can report but what it does
>>>>>>> and what it is required. DDD() is known to halt so HHH(DDD) is
>>>>>>> required to report that it halts. But HHH(DDD) does not report so.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> The only DDD that is known to halt is the DDD that calls HHH(DDD).
>>>>>> HHH(DDD) IS NOT ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE BEHAVIOR OF ITS CALLER.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Counterfactual. It has nothing to do with the caller. World-class
>>>>> simulators show that the exact same input halts.
>>>>
>>>> You are incorrectly calling it an *INPUT* when it never was an actual
>>>> *INPUT* it was always a *NON-INPUT CALLER*
>>>> People have made this same stupid mistake for 90 years.
>>> The thing is, DDD is both,
>>
>> int main()
>> {
>>     DDD; // calls HHH(DDD)
>> }
>>
>> *The input to HHH IS NOT ITS CALLER*
> 
> DDD is DDD.
> 

DDD correctly emulated by HHH
has a different sequence of steps than
DDD correctly emulated by HHH1

I have proven this many times yet it is simply
too difficult for anyone here to understand.

>>> by construction. Data can be code. The contradiction is exactly that
>>> HHH's return value makes the simulation
>>> of DDD wrong. You can't sidestep that by saying they are different
>>> DDD's.


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