Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Every HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input
Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2025 08:54:57 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 92
Message-ID: <10238jh$3m5et$1@dont-email.me>
References: <bvI_P.425446$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> <1021g9h$3327l$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2025 07:54:58 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="926e0a0316ccca2b43c38f3e12481929";
	logging-data="3872221"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18+GFB29cZn0eea9o7liKVa"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:vEWriiVzjag6LUZZxlWb7Qlohf0=

On 2025-06-07 13:53:53 +0000, olcott said:

> 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.

So you don't disagree.

-- 
Mikko