Path: nntp.eternal-september.org!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: Fri, 11 Jul 2025 11:36:02 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 117
Message-ID: <104qidi$1dntf$1@dont-email.me>
References: <101nq32$99vd$1@dont-email.me> <101od0p$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$1@dont-email.me> <104o17v$ppiu$1@dont-email.me> <104oiig$t0u4$5@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2025 10:36:03 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7ff485180650b9bc8c2ec509aeaef70e";
	logging-data="1499055"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19fA+uthyf4WMLCNHZ16YtN"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:TmsOszPiTGGuBjvYUJqhdCXPVuc=

On 2025-07-10 14:26:24 +0000, olcott said:

> On 7/10/2025 4:30 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> That you cannot understand what I say

A false calim aobut another persion is a sin even when presented
as a subordiante clause.

-- 
Mikko