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, 14 Jul 2025 08:25:30 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 110
Message-ID: <10530ga$3dptv$4@dont-email.me>
References: <101nq32$99vd$1@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> <1052i2m$1pbs1$1@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 15:25:31 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e10498e6bc9f284a7eed933d9123bd8c";
	logging-data="3598271"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+Rjv54r9Etrk/B+B4K4I8C"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ntxKgdSW8XDOIPdNCqv8uPf31BE=
In-Reply-To: <1052i2m$1pbs1$1@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250714-2, 7/14/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean

On 7/14/2025 4:19 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> 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.
> 

void RRR()
{
   SSS(DDD);
   return;
}

When RRR is simulated by pure simulator SSS
RRR simulated by SSS never reaches its own
"return" statement.

When we adapt SSS so that it only simulates
N instructions of RRR then no RRR ever reaches
its own "return" statement.

This same thing goes for DDD simulated by HHH.




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