Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Every HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input
Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2025 08:53:53 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 100
Message-ID: <1021g9h$3327l$2@dont-email.me>
References: <bvI_P.425446$o31.351189@fx04.ams4>
 <101fkr6$1db6f$1@dont-email.me> <101hd2e$21nfj$1@dont-email.me>
 <101jbrq$31e9g$1@dont-email.me> <101ot6n$mnm6$1@dont-email.me>
 <101pn1n$smpc$2@dont-email.me> <101rhoj$1dp11$1@dont-email.me>
 <101sf1a$1kh2e$5@dont-email.me> <101u73h$252sq$1@dont-email.me>
 <101v7mu$2crgr$3@dont-email.me> <1020sn5$2u3nr$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2025 15:53:54 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8b5701e9588c79f836e89c5073f428a2";
	logging-data="3246325"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+yBpf3SKbcYWkrXfrXJlD9"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:36PbT09MCC/8Vxm43m1he5lWSho=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <1020sn5$2u3nr$1@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250607-2, 6/7/2025), Outbound message

On 6/7/2025 3:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2025-06-06 17:15:10 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 6/6/2025 2:58 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2025-06-05 16:01:46 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 6/5/2025 2:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-06-04 15:00:07 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/4/2025 2:39 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2025-06-02 05:12:26 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 6/1/2025 6:20 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2025-05-31 19:21:10 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/31/2025 2:11 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott is doing this:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>> DDD(); // DDD calls HHH
>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This is incorrect as it is a category (type) error in the 
>>>>>>>>>>> form of
>>>>>>>>>>> conflation of the EXECUTION of DDD with the SIMULATION of 
>>>>>>>>>>> DDD: to
>>>>>>>>>>> completely and correctly simulate/analyse DDD there must be 
>>>>>>>>>>> no execution
>>>>>>>>>>> of DDD prior to the simulation of DDD.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott should be doing this:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>> HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I would have left it there except that many dozens of
>>>>>>>>>> reviewers have pointed out that they believe that HHH
>>>>>>>>>> is supposed to report on the behavior of its caller.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A halt decider is required to report on the computation it is 
>>>>>>>>> asked
>>>>>>>>> about. There is no requirement that a halt decider knows or can 
>>>>>>>>> find
>>>>>>>>> out whether it is called by the program about which is required to
>>>>>>>>> report. Consequently, whether the computaton asked about calls the
>>>>>>>>> decider is irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The *input* to simulating termination analyzer HHH(DDD)
>>>>>>>> specifies recursive simulation that can never reach its
>>>>>>>> *simulated "return" instruction final halt state*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If it does then the "input" is not DDD, which specifies a halting
>>>>>>> behaviour if HHH is a decider.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can say these things only by making
>>>>>> sure to ignore the verified facts.
>>>>>
>>>>> We can ignore irrelevant facts. But if you ignore relevant 
>>>>> requirements
>>>>> you can't prove that your soliution is correct.
>>>>
>>>> As long as DDD emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach
>>>> its own "return" instruction final halt state then
>>>> DDD is non halting even if it is never simulated.
>>>
>>> That is not what "non-halting" means. Anything said about "DDD emulated
>>> by HHH" is irrelevant. Wikipedia says: "In computability theory, the
>>> halting problem is the problem of determining, from a description of an
>>> arbitrary computer program and an input, whether the program will finish
>>> running, or continue to run forever." Your HHH(DDD) does not do that.
>>
>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>      If *simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its*
>>      *input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D*
>>      *would never stop running unless aborted* then
> 
> That is not a definition of the meaning of halting. That is a diagnostic
> cirterion for a conclusion not shown in the partial quote above. SIpser
> does not prove the validity of the criterion.
> 

The above criterion measure is a self-evident truth.

In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident
proposition is a proposition that is known to be true
by understanding its meaning without proof...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence

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