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: Mon, 7 Jul 2025 08:32:03 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 94
Message-ID: <104gi8j$2uc68$2@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>
 <4cb5d16be8d1e6549823f35081050e7dad462da2@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2025 15:32:03 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5b8546c5fedfaaedc96332a808ca8671";
	logging-data="3092680"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/VN+Gvs4PhlKkZKtQztxEZ"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:mEmyZRbWs/pJyPX9Yvckcvxdj+E=
In-Reply-To: <4cb5d16be8d1e6549823f35081050e7dad462da2@i2pn2.org>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250707-2, 7/7/2025), Outbound message

On 7/7/2025 6:19 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 7/6/25 11:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> 
> Sure it is, there isn't a "law" that prohibits wrong answer, it just 
> makes it not correct.
> 

Sure in the same way that reporting the square root
of a rotten egg is incorrect.

> And, since the input to a halt decider is supposed to be a 
> representation/description (as a term-of-art word) of a Turing Machine, 
> and the behavior that this input specifies is defined as the behavior of 
> directly running that machine,

That has always been incorrect.

> you claim is really that that the ONLY 
> thing that HHH is ALLOWED to answer about is that direct execution, 
> which you also are trying to claim it doesn't need to.
> 
> So, you are just showing that you are just a liar and have created a 
> fantasy world which you are trying to live in full of your own self- 
> contradictions, but divorced from the actual rules of the world.
> 

You have never even found an actual single mistake.

> This is just your manifistions of your insanity,
> 
>> Most people here don't get that because they have no
>> actual depth of understanding. They can only parrot
>> the words of textbooks.
>>
> 
> No, you are just showing that you don't know what you are talking about, 
> and can just parrot the lies that you made up and have no support for.]
> 
> Better to parrot truth then to be imaginatively telling lies (and your 
> aren't even being very imaginative any more).

Everything that I said is a verified fact.
Every rebuttal has been counter-factual at best.
That you don't seem to even understand what recursion
is proves that you are insufficiently competent.

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