Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: My reviewers think that halt deciders must report on the behavior
 of their caller
Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2025 19:29:36 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <1f47b5adbca9712a3fa1265362bc02d5065e21ed@i2pn2.org>
References: <101nq32$99vd$1@dont-email.me> <101or6b$maj5$1@dont-email.me>
 <101pq02$ta6v$4@dont-email.me> <1020tgu$2u99v$1@dont-email.me>
 <1021gmv$3327l$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2025 23:51:17 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3748038"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <1021gmv$3327l$4@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4048
Lines: 73

On 6/7/25 10:01 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/7/2025 3:33 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-06-04 15:50:25 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 6/4/2025 2:04 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2025-06-03 21:39:46 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> They all say that HHH must report on the behavior of
>>>>> direct execution of DDD()
>>>>
>>>> No, they don't say that. A halting decider (and a partial halting
>>>> decider when it reports) must report whether the direct execution
>>>> of the computation asked about terminates. Unless that computation
>>>> happens to be DDD() it must report about another behaviour instead
>>>> of DDD().
>>>>
>>>>> yet never bother to notice that the directly executed DDD() is
>>>>> the caller of HHH(DDD).
>>>>
>>>> To say that nobody has noticed that is a lie. Perhaps they have not
>>>> mentioned what is irrelevant to whatever they said. In particular,
>>>> whether DDD() calls HHH(DDD) is irrelevant to the requirement that
>>>> a halting decider must report about a direct exection of the
>>>> computation the input specifies.
>>>
>>> *People have ignored this for 90 years*
>>
>> So you say bot don't show.
>>
>>> The only possible way that HHH can report on the
>>> direct execution of DDD() is for HHH to report on
>>> the behavior of its caller:
>>
>> Now you are changing the topic. Your false claim was that "They all
>> say that HHH must report on the behavior of direct execution of DDD()
> 
> Verified fact.
> 
>> yet never bother to notice that the directly executed DDD() is the
>> caller of HHH(DDD)".
>>
> 
> And your counter-example is ???
> 
> int main()
> {
>    DDD(); // The HHH(DDD) that DDD calls cannot report on
> }        // the behavior of its caller.
> 
> Your rebuttals fail to provide enough details
> to be more than lame. If you did provide more
> details then your rebuttals would be incoherent.
> By providing lame rebuttals closure is postponed.
> 

No, YOUR SYSTEM fails to provide the decider with enough details about 
the input to define the mapping.


Fix that by including the code for the PROGRAM HHH into the 
representation of the input (which HHH looks at anyway to emulate 
itself, so it really does need to be it), which also requires that HHH 
be made into an actual program and thus have a defined algorithm (which 
you needed to do to run it anyway).

Thus, When we do those fixes, HHH has been given all the information 
required to determine (but not necesarily compute) the answer to the 
question does the program represented by the input halt.

Your problem is that your argument doesn't allow for either of those 
things to be done, or your argument breaks, and thus you whole argument 
is just based on the lie of a category error, that neither your HHH or 
the input DDD are actually programs (or their representations) and thus 
you are just shown to be lying about even talking about Computation Theory.