Path: nntp.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: My reviewers think that halt deciders must report on the behavior
 of their caller
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2025 11:19:18 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 86
Message-ID: <1052i2m$1pbs1$1@dont-email.me>
References: <101nq32$99vd$1@dont-email.me> <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>
 <104gi8j$2uc68$2@dont-email.me>
 <152859a4a4ef31aa45580e873eb6970c34b97ef9@i2pn2.org>
 <104hmb5$35gkb$1@dont-email.me>
 <f12be9e3474cf08b01ae1a4381f77205bbac1da3@i2pn2.org>
 <104i15g$36mma$2@dont-email.me>
 <c0cf1db3b26b15b6b2df8a22e9f415c10aee59a7@i2pn2.org>
 <104jcqn$3jrpl$10@dont-email.me> <104lb03$13ioh$2@dont-email.me>
 <104lp8o$7l4q$7@dont-email.me> <104o662$18h8g$1@dont-email.me>
 <104oj2v$t0u4$7@dont-email.me> <104qjcg$1c0m7$1@dont-email.me>
 <104ruag$1ml84$3@dont-email.me> <104t5nk$1frch$2@dont-email.me>
 <104tuh6$264oq$9@dont-email.me> <104vij5$1jfin$2@dont-email.me>
 <1050juk$2qkok$6@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2025 09:19:18 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a30fc417a084b19322327d5727b3117c";
	logging-data="1879937"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18P/RhLh3gmyv1RYhkjSAhH"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:+y4dtlb/AqSGl35ykbA11EotfOA=
In-Reply-To: <1050juk$2qkok$6@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: nl, en-GB

Op 13.jul.2025 om 17:38 schreef olcott:
> On 7/13/2025 1:09 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 12.jul.2025 om 17:21 schreef olcott:
>>> On 7/12/2025 3:17 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 11.jul.2025 om 23:05 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 7/11/2025 3:52 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 10.jul.2025 om 16:35 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>> On 7/10/2025 5:54 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>> Op 09.jul.2025 om 15:02 schreef olcott:>
>>>>>>>>> All Turing machine deciders only compute the mapping
>>>>>>>>> from their actual inputs. This entails that they never
>>>>>>>>> compute any mapping from non-inputs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> At least one thing you understand.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *From the bottom of page 319 has been adapted to this*
>>>>>>> https://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP_317-320.pdf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *The Linz proof does not understand this*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.∞
>>>>>>>    *if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts, and*
>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>    *if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The evidence is that the input includes the code to abort and 
>>>>>>>>>> halt,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> abort and stop running
>>>>>>>>> *IS NOT THE SAME THING AS*
>>>>>>>>> abort and halt
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Another claim without evidence.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *It is common knowledge in the theory of computation*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Another claim without evidence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Your lack of knowledge of computer science is not a rebuttal*
>>>>>
>>>>> Look at the definition of a Turing Machine (e.g., the one here). 
>>>>> The machine has states. Each state can be final or non-final. If 
>>>>> the machine's state is non-final, in the next step the machine 
>>>>> "does" something, namely, it can write something on the tape, move 
>>>>> its head, and/or change its state to a different state. This is how 
>>>>> the machine makes a progress.
>>>>
>>>> So, aborting the simulation when the machine has not yet reached its 
>>>> final state, is a violation of the Turing Machine.
>>>>
>>>
>>> void DDD()
>>> {
>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>    return;
>>> }
>>>
>>> So you don't understand that DDD simulated by
>>> pure simulator HHH keeps repeating its first
>>> line forever?
>>
>> Irrelevant, because that is not what HHH does.
> 
> void DDD()
> {
>    HHH(DDD);
>    return;
> }
> 
> I stipulated this HHH <is> a pure simulator temporarily
> overriding and superseding everything else that I ever
> said about HHH.

You can stipulate that, but is irrelevant for the HHH you published in 
Halt7.c. *That* HHH is not a pure simulator. The fact that a pure 
simulator fails is no proof for the correctness of the non-pure simulator.
Dreaming of other simulators with other behaviour does not change the 
factual behaviour of the HHH we are discussing.