Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: My reviewers think that halt deciders must report on the behavior
 of their caller
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2025 10:22:32 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 138
Message-ID: <104ra7p$1icss$2@dont-email.me>
References: <101nq32$99vd$1@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> <104qidi$1dntf$1@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 17:22:33 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="77a1f53edba794dcd0b3794096040439";
	logging-data="1651612"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19pNw2aPha4GT19cv2n3AuG"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:xG3Jo9WkiM2NIKevfON1FJaMCKY=
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <104qidi$1dntf$1@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250711-6, 7/11/2025), Outbound message

On 7/11/2025 3:36 AM, Mikko wrote:
> 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.
> 

That you cannot understand that you do not understand
what I say is not you understanding what I say.

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⟩, and

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 makes the Linz proof counter-example
input decidable.

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