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: Tue, 10 Jun 2025 11:49:07 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 131
Message-ID: <1029nm3$1ah2f$10@dont-email.me>
References: <bvI_P.425446$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> <10238jh$3m5et$1@dont-email.me>
 <102395t$3m1s3$3@dont-email.me> <1028lj2$13oo6$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2025 18:49:08 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="668213ca1180824494e01b33326cf4e0";
	logging-data="1393743"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19CCYzgghCjRnkYp1enDlZA"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:JNiGXEjg12ZIyI7rdNfigqK90e4=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250610-6, 6/10/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <1028lj2$13oo6$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US

On 6/10/2025 2:07 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2025-06-08 06:04:45 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 6/8/2025 12:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> 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

It is one definition of non-halting in that
it logically entails never reaching the
simulated "return" statement final halt state.

>>>>> 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.
>>
>> Here is another way of saying 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*
> 
> You don't need more ways to say that you don't disagree.
> 


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