Path: nntp.eternal-september.org!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: Wed, 16 Jul 2025 10:15:53 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 84
Message-ID: <1058fn9$pn5l$2@dont-email.me>
References: <101nq32$99vd$1@dont-email.me> <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> <104qimm$1dpnl$1@dont-email.me>
 <104rad9$1icss$3@dont-email.me> <104t4na$21rg3$1@dont-email.me>
 <104tra1$264oq$2@dont-email.me> <104vm2f$2ldm1$1@dont-email.me>
 <1050in9$2qkok$3@dont-email.me> <1052gji$3au6g$1@dont-email.me>
 <105304j$3dptv$3@dont-email.me> <105567k$5rd$1@dont-email.me>
 <1055kg7$2t13$6@dont-email.me> <1057pe1$l9av$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2025 17:15:53 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1f60905f55e1a99080af4bc76753d29b";
	logging-data="842933"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+90Lf9dU0YE2uqUaPXd3Cd"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:+DvP8YDY7A8/a5gAbuOkiXKurJQ=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250716-2, 7/16/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <1057pe1$l9av$1@dont-email.me>

On 7/16/2025 3:55 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2025-07-15 13:19:02 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 7/15/2025 4:15 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2025-07-14 13:19:15 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 7/14/2025 3:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-07-13 15:18:01 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 7/13/2025 2:09 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2025-07-12 14:26:09 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2025 3:00 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2025-07-11 15:25:29 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/11/2025 3:40 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-07-10 14:35:11 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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*
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Proofs don't understand. They prove.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It fails to prove undecidability when the decider
>>>>>>>>>> correctly excludes directly executed Turing machines
>>>>>>>>>> from its domain.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That does not change the last sentence of the proof. Therefore the
>>>>>>>>> proof proves what it would prove anyway.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It completely invalidates the proof.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, it does not. The proof reamins as it was. A proof is valid if 
>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>> is no error in the proof. Nothing else is relevant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are errors that you do not understand.
>>>>>
>>>>> For the purpose of these discussion it is not neessary to understand
>>>>> your errors beyond that they are errors.
>>>>
>>>> int DD()
>>>> {
>>>>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>    return Halt_Status;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> *There are errors with the proof*
>>>
>>> You make errors with proofs. But the uncomputability of halting can be
>>> (and has been) proven without errors.
>>
>> That the errors have never been noticed before
>> IS NOT THE SAME AS THERE ARE NO ERRORS.
> 
> If there were an error in the proof you would quote the erronoeus 
> inference.
> 

The error is the requirement that a halt decider
reports on the direct execution of a machine that
is not an input.

A halt decider computes the mapping from an input
finite string to the actual behavior that this
finite string actually specifies which includes
HHH simulating itself simulating DDD.

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