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: Thu, 17 Jul 2025 11:01:05 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 200
Message-ID: <105aak1$190ki$1@dont-email.me>
References: <101nq32$99vd$1@dont-email.me> <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> <104ra7p$1icss$2@dont-email.me> <104t4vm$21sut$1@dont-email.me> <104trot$264oq$3@dont-email.me> <104vlsm$2lcg4$1@dont-email.me> <1050im2$2qkok$2@dont-email.me> <1052gav$3asdr$1@dont-email.me> <1052vg1$3dptv$2@dont-email.me> <10555vk$4h3$1@dont-email.me> <1055j70$2t13$5@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2025 10:01:06 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="990e5236ee8b769f49c05559a821d65b";
	logging-data="1344146"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/crN2YTJRFDyFhI+z/3veU"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:0/+hzf1GSUoipRk2Vs7Lcnk30/A=

On 2025-07-15 12:57:04 +0000, olcott said:

> On 7/15/2025 4:11 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-07-14 13:08:16 +0000, olcott said:
>> 
>>> On 7/14/2025 3:49 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2025-07-13 15:17:22 +0000, olcott said:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 7/13/2025 2:05 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-07-12 14:34:05 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 7/12/2025 3:05 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2025-07-11 15:22:32 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Nevertheless a false claim about another prestion is a sin.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> When you prove that you don't understand something and
>>>>>>> I claim that you don't understand this then my statement
>>>>>>> is factually correct.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> What I understand or not is not important eonough to lie about or even
>>>>>> mention.
>>>>> 
>>>>> You have proven do not understand some of these things.
>>>> 
>>>> It is true that your presentation does not make ehough sense that there
>>>> could be something to be understood. But in that case it is sufficient
>>>> that I understand that you said nothing and can point out that to those
>>>> readers how may fail to notice.
>>> 
>>> And some of my readers have ADHD so badly that when
>>> I correct their mistakes hundreds of times they never
>>> notice any of the words of any of those corrections.
>> 
>> So have you. When your mistakes are corrected hundreds of times
>> you neve notice any of the words of any of those corrections.
> 
> Whenever I have non-existent mistakes "corrected"
> by the misconceptions of others, these still remain
> the misconceptions of others.

You must correct your errors. Others identify your errors and may propose
correction but it is your choce to correct your presentation. Perhaps
someone identifies as a substanatial mistake something that is merely an
unclear presentation but presentational errors must be corrected, too.
If you don't have valid counter arguments to error indications you dpn't
prove or refute anything.

> This goes around and around because when I explain
> how these are misconceptions my explanations are
> ignored.

This goes around and around because you keep repeating your errors
and don't even try to fix them.

> When the misconceptions of others are claimed to be
> my mistake these others cannot explain the details
> of their misconceptions because they are incoherent.

When you claim your misconceptions to be other people's mistakes
you can't do anything to avoid going around and around.

> It goes like this X makes a baseless claim that I am
> wrong. I prove that X has no basis, then X makes the
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========