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 08:56:06 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 111
Message-ID: <1021gdm$3327l$3@dont-email.me>
References: <bvI_P.425446$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> <101ua5p$25q66$1@dont-email.me>
 <101v58j$2c1iv$3@dont-email.me> <1020t4j$2u6h7$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 15:56:07 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8b5701e9588c79f836e89c5073f428a2";
	logging-data="3246325"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1858CNKIkO2Her0Yu/Zktxv"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:DUgLIwXzRw7IKu1qRVIoJJcaSis=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250607-2, 6/7/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <1020t4j$2u6h7$1@dont-email.me>

On 6/7/2025 3:26 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2025-06-06 16:33:23 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 6/6/2025 3:51 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. If it can be exectuted to its
>>> final halt state it is a halting computation, and we know that it
>>> can be because it has been.
>>
>> We cannot simply ignore and
> 
> Be specific: we cannot simply ignore the meaning of "non halting".
> 
>> thus give up on
> 
> Ignoring is not the same as giving up. For example, you ignore
> important relevant things but you don't give up.
> 
>> the case where an input calls its own termination analyzer,
>> even if it is the historical precedent to give up.
> 
> The requirement for that case are the same as for any other case.
> You may need to consider it separately if want to make your partial
> decider to handle it.
> 

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*

*Every rebuttal to this changes the words*


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