Path: nntp.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: My reviewers think that halt deciders must report on the behavior
 of their caller
Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2025 11:12:02 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 94
Message-ID: <104bisi$1hqln$12@dont-email.me>
References: <101nq32$99vd$1@dont-email.me> <101o913$db96$2@dont-email.me>
 <101o9rb$hd6o$1@dont-email.me> <101oa30$db96$4@dont-email.me>
 <101obb4$hd6o$4@dont-email.me> <101oc24$hlr6$2@dont-email.me>
 <101ocpc$hd6o$7@dont-email.me> <101od0p$i3m6$2@dont-email.me>
 <1049edr$10io1$2@dont-email.me>
 <a25b36c514731c7946fc2fb5e003c4dda451452e@i2pn2.org>
 <1049jq8$11mmt$3@dont-email.me> <104akr5$jhv8$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2025 18:12:02 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3f20c216653e9576f04ef75b87489cd0";
	logging-data="1632951"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/VUx9HyqtZY1YV6P2nPW+q"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:3nk6kGZ32658pBZsbB+Ybtt1IeI=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <104akr5$jhv8$3@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250705-4, 7/5/2025), Outbound message

On 7/5/2025 2:39 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 05.jul.2025 om 00:15 schreef olcott:
>> On 7/4/2025 3:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 7/4/25 4:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/3/2025 10:02 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>> On 6/3/2025 10:58 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/3/2025 9:46 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/3/2025 10:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/3/2025 9:12 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of 
>>>>>>>>> instructions) X described as <X> with input Y:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that 
>>>>>>>>> computes the following mapping:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly
>>>>>>>>> (<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when 
>>>>>>>>> executed directly
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes there is no algorithm that does that 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Excellent!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Let The Record Show
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That Peter Olcott
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Has *EXPLICITLY* admitted
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That no algorithm H exists that meets the above requirements, 
>>>>>>> which is precisely the theorem that the halting problem proofs 
>>>>>>> prove.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the exact same way that there is no set of all set
>>>>>> that contain themselves. ZFC did not solve Russell's
>>>>>> Paradox as much as it showed that Russell's Paradox
>>>>>> was anchored in an incoherent foundation, now called
>>>>>> naive set theory.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which arose because the axioms of naive set theory created a 
>>>>> contradiction.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Likewise with halt deciders that are required to report
>>>> on the behavior of directly executed Turing machines.
>>>
>>> And what is the CONTRADICTION?
>>>
>>> The result is just some things are not computable.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Directly executed Turing machines are outside of the
>>>> domain of every Turing machine decider.
>>>
>>> Then so is mathematics, as "numbers" can't be given to Turing 
>>> Machines, only representations of them.
>>>
>>
>> Numbers always work the same way so it makes no difference.
>>
>> *HHH(DDD)==0 and HHH1(DDD)==1 are both correct*
>> https://claude.ai/share/da9b8e3f-eb16-42ca-a9e8-913f4b88202c
>>
>> When we compare DDD emulated by HHH and DDD emulated
>> by HHH1 SIDE-BY-SIDE. (Mike didn't do it this way).
>>
>> *The difference is when*
>> HHH begins to simulate itself simulating DDD and
>> HHH1 NEVER begins to simulate itself simulating DDD.
>>
> Misleading words. Both simulators are given the same input. Both are 
> simulating the same input, which includes HHH, not HHH1. So, there is no 
> difference.

*Its just over your head*
HHH(DDD) Does simulate itself simulating DDD
thus causing recursive simulation that cannot
possibly reach the simulated final halt state of DDD.

HHH1(DDD) NEVER simulates itself simulating DDD thus
allowing DDD to reach its own simulated final halt state.

Maybe you are unclear on what the word NEVER means?
Do you think that NEVER means "some of the time"?

> If there is a difference, you could point to the first instruction that 
> has a different result in the simulations. But you can't.


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