Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2025 17:33:52 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 101
Message-ID: <102d082$28067$1@dont-email.me>
References: <yU0_P.1529838$4AM6.776697@fx17.ams4>
 <102c5nb$21qj7$2@dont-email.me>
 <602d915e3a80042ddac7f05fb389837ce3cefc12.camel@gmail.com>
 <102c7dj$226jq$1@dont-email.me>
 <0373fc8c6462341f655385edf6d4a0664a35981d.camel@gmail.com>
 <102ca1c$22pmt$1@dont-email.me>
 <85f876c4db96fb776dabc80c4208feed6aabc76d.camel@gmail.com>
 <102cdon$23jal$1@dont-email.me>
 <2e40a87aeb9e28ce23b5ebf3fcbf23dad6728a9b.camel@gmail.com>
 <102cg6f$246h5$1@dont-email.me>
 <822e204898d419545ca400a9088970f0b6a5107f.camel@gmail.com>
 <102ckje$25dg0$2@dont-email.me>
 <c5adb4ff9ac0a31da990ff83ab1ef7f242a2f7a7.camel@gmail.com>
 <102cm0u$25dg0$3@dont-email.me>
 <610e2a54b66e8576b80bda3a0fe188d025b9798e.camel@gmail.com>
 <102cp0e$26clp$1@dont-email.me>
 <d4b02c8deb6dd72c7bf143b07c2752d93b825b1d.camel@gmail.com>
 <102crbv$26rt0$1@dont-email.me>
 <ade2f19a880169bbaf09794b496e585b7eb8b677.camel@gmail.com>
 <102ctbg$26rt0$2@dont-email.me>
 <f09964feafdca25ea8efbe546868084bcd9df3a0.camel@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2025 00:33:39 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9f0ba097a1221e597ea76cc26b2e661a";
	logging-data="2359495"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+3DF950fhpvEiIag9LQo2c"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:n0+G03Im6BO4p6UXJmIGlgozWC8=
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250611-4, 6/11/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <f09964feafdca25ea8efbe546868084bcd9df3a0.camel@gmail.com>

On 6/11/2025 4:57 PM, wij wrote:
> On Wed, 2025-06-11 at 16:44 -0500, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/11/2025 4:23 PM, wij wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2025-06-11 at 16:10 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/11/2025 3:59 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 2025-06-11 at 15:30 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/11/2025 2:45 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 2025-06-11 at 14:39 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/11/2025 2:31 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 2025-06-11 at 14:14 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/11/2025 1:25 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 2025-06-11 at 12:59 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes all other people (especially Dennis Bush) are saying
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that H(D) is required to report on the behavior of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> direct execution of D() never noticing that this stupidly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requires H(D) to report on the behavior of its caller.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the H above means the H that the HP refers to. The H is required to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> report its argument's behavior (ie. by H(D)). But NOT required by simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It turns out that no one ever noticed that simulating halt
>>>>>>>>>>>> deciders nullify the HP counter-example input in that this
>>>>>>>>>>>> input cannot possibly reach its contradictory part.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The HP does not care what D does (simply to say).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Everyone says that H(D) must re[port on the behavior of
>>>>>>>>>>>> the direct execution of D().
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That is what the HP asks.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The HP only requires: H(D)==1 iff D() halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>          D(); // calls H(D)
>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Which requires H(D) to report on the behavior of its
>>>>>>>>>>>> caller instead of reporting on the behavior that its
>>>>>>>>>>>> input actually specifies.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That is no problem. H does not care what D does inside (simply to say).
>>>>>>>>>>> The HP simply asks for a H that "H(D)==1 iff D() halts".
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Which requires H to report on something that it cannot possibly see.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On the contrary, what the HP proves is very useful.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am not talking about the halting problem, I have always
>>>>>>>> been talking about the conventional halting problem proof.
>>>>>>>> THIS PROOF IS WRONG
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When talking about proof, we say it is valid or not. By doing so, we have
>>>>>>> to unambiguously pose the problem and the derivation to the conclusion.
>>>>>>> The HP proof just did that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It may seem that way if you pay less than 100%
>>>>>> complete attention.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The HP proof depends on an *INPUT* that does
>>>>>> the opposite of whatever value that H returns
>>>>>> and no such *INPUT* can possibly exist.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is absolutely correct. No such *INPUT* (i.e. D) can possible exit is because
>>>>> the H inside D does not exist at all.
>>>>> So, if the H is assumed to exist, then D will exist to make H undecidable.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There is no *input* to any termination analyzer
>>>> that can do the opposite of whatever value that
>>>> this termination analyzer returns
>>>
>>> Your reinterpretation of of HP case is wrong.
>>> Your D or H is not the case mention in the HP proof.
>>>
>>
>> There cannot possibly exist any D mine or
>> anyone else's that is encoded to do the opposite
>> of whatever value that H returns.
> 
> Why not? D and H are supposed to be TM (or C function).
> If the D cannot do the opposite of whatever value that H returns, then
> that D is not powerful enough to be a TM, not an interesting case.
> 

Can you be your biological mother's biological father?
It is for this same reason that the function's caller
cannot simultaneously be its input.


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