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: Thu, 10 Jul 2025 12:30:39 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 109
Message-ID: <104o17v$ppiu$1@dont-email.me>
References: <101nq32$99vd$1@dont-email.me> <101oc24$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> <104g10n$2r52v$1@dont-email.me> <104gkqr$2uc68$5@dont-email.me> <104ii8o$3ehok$1@dont-email.me> <104j9hr$3jrpl$4@dont-email.me> <104l8ra$50d2$1@dont-email.me> <104ln4n$7l4q$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2025 11:30:40 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1bbbce4af4afd9c6d573b22ed0f6eaac";
	logging-data="845406"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18WHmIX4OqQn7qOss7kIwnk"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:CAFGj2n0ZFjQZuUgL8sSLqNagpY=

On 2025-07-09 12:25:59 +0000, olcott said:

> On 7/9/2025 3:22 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-07-08 14:21:47 +0000, olcott said:
>> 
>>> On 7/8/2025 2:44 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2025-07-07 14:15:54 +0000, olcott said:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 7/7/2025 3:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>> 
>>>>> To people that never had any actual understanding and
>>>>> can only parrot textbooks. They need to see this things
>>>>> in other textbooks.
>>>> 
>>>> People who can parrot textbooks know better than people who cannot.
>>>> That you can't when you should shows that you can't even parrot
>>>> textbooks.
>>> 
>>> I just reverse-engineer what the truth actually is.
>>> *From the bottom of page 319 has been adapted to this*
>>> https://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP_317-320.pdf
>>> 
>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.∞
>>>      ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by Ĥ.embedded_H reaches
>>>      its simulated final halt state of ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩
>>> 
>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>      ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by Ĥ.embedded_H cannot possibly
>>>      reach its simulated final halt state of ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩
>> 
>> The above does not make sense. There are one subordinate clause
>> and two nmain clauses but they are not linked to a sentence.
>> Whithout a sentence nothing is said.
> 
> The reason that I gave you a link to the whole
> original proof is so that you could see how it
> makes sense. Maybe the original proof doesn't
> make sense to you either?

I'm not talking about any proof, I'm talking about your words and
symbols quored above. What is written in the book does make sense.
In particular, clauses are meaningfully linked to sentences.
Perhaps the presentation could be clearer but it is intended for
students that already know and understand the earlier parts of the
book.

> Linz tried to make two blocks of code into
> English sentences.

The "blocks of code" are main clauses. They use abrevations because those
are easier to read than a full natural language sentence. There are other
clauses so that all clauses together form a sentence. In particuralr, ther
is an "and" between them. The sentence is not a truth bearer. Instead it
expresses a desire.

If you want to say something you should learn to construct meaningful
sentences.

-- 
Mikko