Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: My reviewers think that halt deciders must report on the behavior of their caller
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2025 11:37:43 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 57
Message-ID: <104g10n$2r52v$1@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> <1049jhv$11mmt$2@dont-email.me> <89d2edbab76401270efa67a8fbc135d5c47fefab@i2pn2.org> <104bjmr$1hqln$16@dont-email.me> <3f64fdd81d67415b7b0e305463d950c0c71e2db7@i2pn2.org> <EKKdnXZfl9Qpf_T1nZ2dnZfqlJ-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <9dcab3b82e32f9eb8473f8bc5361ab2fbef8b8f8@i2pn2.org> <104cud2$1r72a$2@dont-email.me> <a346224cd5d8b4001580eb6e5ff8783e58c9b7f5@i2pn2.org> <104e46s$28pqb$2@dont-email.me> <960c2417e6f691b2b12703506c207990df5b39ab@i2pn2.org> <104el09$2dpog$1@dont-email.me> <1ca786773f9ff02718c66e082bbc4182b36732ab@i2pn2.org> <104fduv$2n8gq$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2025 10:37:43 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="74139872e41d5936ab037b276ce52aef";
	logging-data="2987103"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/poyQgMtLbMpWckETFsoc2"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ChV7L7iL0BCIzByb2P+Dio1sQPw=

On 2025-07-07 03:12:30 +0000, olcott said:

> On 7/6/2025 9:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/6/25 4:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/6/2025 12:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 7/6/25 11:19 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>> {
>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>    return;
>>>>> }
>>>>> 
>>>>> *EVERY BOT FIGURES THIS OUT ON ITS OWN*
>>>> 
>>>> No, it just isn't smart enough to detect that you lied in your premise.
>>>> 
>>>>> There is no way that DDD simulated by HHH (according
>>>>> to the semantics of the C programming language)
>>>>> can possibly reach its own "return" statement final
>>>>> halt state.
>>>> 
>>>> And there is no way for HHH to correctly simulate its input and return 
>>>> an answer
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> You insistence that a non-terminating input be simulated
>>> until non-existent completion is especially nuts because
>>> you have been told about this dozens of times.
>>> 
>>> What the F is wrong with you?
>>> 
>> 
>> It seems you don't understand those words.
>> 
>> I don't say that the decider needs to simulate the input to completion, 
>> but that it needs to be able to actually PROVE that if this exact input 
>> WAS given to a correct simultor (which won't be itself, since it isn't 
>> doing the complete simulation) will run for an unbounded number of 
>> steps.
> 
> No decider is ever allowed to report on anything
> besides the actual behavior that its input actually
> specifies.

Unless you can quote some respectable author your prohibitions are
meaningless.

> Most people here don't get that because they have no
> actual depth of understanding. They can only parrot
> the words of textbooks.

Do you even understand what the word "allowed" means?

-- 
Mikko