Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: My reviewers think that halt deciders must report on the behavior
 of their caller
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2025 22:09:43 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <1ca786773f9ff02718c66e082bbc4182b36732ab@i2pn2.org>
References: <101nq32$99vd$1@dont-email.me> <101o913$db96$2@dont-email.me>
 <101o9rb$hd6o$1@dont-email.me> <101oa30$db96$4@dont-email.me>
 <101obb4$hd6o$4@dont-email.me> <101oc24$hlr6$2@dont-email.me>
 <101ocpc$hd6o$7@dont-email.me> <101od0p$i3m6$2@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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2025 02:09:59 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3701740"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <104el09$2dpog$1@dont-email.me>

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:
>>> On 7/6/2025 6:50 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 7/6/25 12:34 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/5/2025 10:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/5/25 10:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/5/2025 7:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/5/25 12:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/5/2025 8:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/4/25 6:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/4/2025 3:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/4/25 4:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/3/2025 10:02 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/3/2025 10:58 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/3/2025 9:46 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/3/2025 10:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/3/2025 9:12 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of instructions) X described as <X> with input Y:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that computes the following mapping:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> executed directly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when executed directly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes there is no algorithm that does that 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Excellent!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let The Record Show
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That Peter Olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Has *EXPLICITLY* admitted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That no algorithm H exists that meets the above 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requirements, which is precisely the theorem that the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting problem proofs prove.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the exact same way that there is no set of all set
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that contain themselves. ZFC did not solve Russell's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Paradox as much as it showed that Russell's Paradox
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was anchored in an incoherent foundation, now called
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> naive set theory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which arose because the axioms of naive set theory created 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a contradiction.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise with halt deciders that are required to report
>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the behavior of directly executed Turing machines.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And what is the CONTRADICTION?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The result is just some things are not computable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The result is that there cannot possibly be
>>>>>>>>>>> an *ACTUAL INPUT* that does the opposite of
>>>>>>>>>>> whatever its partial halt decider decides
>>>>>>>>>>> thus the HP proof fails before it begins.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sure there is.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In order to have an honest dialogue you must pay
>>>>>>>>> 100% complete attention to every single word.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You can't just erase one of the words that I said
>>>>>>>>> and then form a rebuttal on that basis.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Directly executed Turing machines have always been
>>>>>>>>> outside of the domain of every Turing machine based
>>>>>>>>> decider.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your refusal to providee a source is your admission that you are 
>>>>>>>> just a liar.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Remember, The DEFINITION of a Halt Deicder is that it is to be a 
>>>>>>>> decider that decides if the program represented by its input 
>>>>>>>> will halt when run.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It has never been the program represented by its input
>>>>>>> it has always been the behavior specified by its input.
>>>>>>> This is the key mistake that no one noticed in 90 years.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Really?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of 
>>>>>> determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer program 
>>>>>> and an input, whether the program will finish running, or continue 
>>>>>> to run forever.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sounds like the program and its representation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> With pathological self-reference the directly
>>>>> executed machine will not have the same
>>>>> behavior as the correctly simulated machine
>>>>> specification.
>>>>
>>>> Sure it does.
>>>>
>>>
>>> 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.

The "behavior" of the input isn't a subjective property, that is 
dependent on something about the decider, but is an objective property 
that is only a function of the input (which includes what HHH that given 
DDD was paired with).

Your confusion with the TRUTH of what that (perhaps just hypothetical) 
correct simulation does, with the KNOWLEDGE that the decider got by its 
(partial) simulation just shows you stupidity.

The fact that you keep on working with self-contradictory equivocations 
on what "the input" means just shows the level of your deceit (or 
stupidity).

If "the input" that represents DDD doesn't include the code for HHH, 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========