Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!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: Fri, 6 Jun 2025 21:54:23 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <286e7093d7f737dc2caf2e71dc8daf6ed102a089@i2pn2.org>
References: <101nq32$99vd$1@dont-email.me> <101or6b$maj5$1@dont-email.me>
 <101pq02$ta6v$4@dont-email.me> <101ri5b$1drjj$1@dont-email.me>
 <101sf41$1kh2e$6@dont-email.me> <101u89n$251rg$2@dont-email.me>
 <101v8o8$2d3v6$3@dont-email.me>
 <da44bf381e72fe02108d30497b7a53a3c640119a@i2pn2.org>
 <101vf33$2egad$2@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 02:27:49 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3619576"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <101vf33$2egad$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US

On 6/6/25 3:21 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/6/2025 2:18 PM, joes wrote:
>> Am Fri, 06 Jun 2025 12:32:56 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 6/6/2025 3:19 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 05.jun.2025 om 18:03 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 6/5/2025 2:48 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:
>>
>>>>>>>>> yet never bother to notice that the directly executed DDD() is the
>>>>>>>>> caller of HHH(DDD).
>>
>>>>>>> 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:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The relevant question is not what HHH can report but what it does and
>>>>>> what it is required. DDD() is known to halt so HHH(DDD) is required
>>>>>> to report that it halts. But HHH(DDD) does not report so.
>>>>>>
>>>>> The only DDD that is known to halt is the DDD that calls HHH(DDD).
>>>>> HHH(DDD) IS NOT ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE BEHAVIOR OF ITS CALLER.
>>>>>
>>>> Counterfactual. It has nothing to do with the caller. World-class
>>>> simulators show that the exact same input halts.
>>>
>>> You are incorrectly calling it an *INPUT* when it never was an actual
>>> *INPUT* it was always a *NON-INPUT CALLER*
>>> People have made this same stupid mistake for 90 years.
>> The thing is, DDD is both, 
> 
> int main()
> {
>    DDD; // calls HHH(DDD)
> }
> 
> *The input to HHH IS NOT ITS CALLER*

No, it is the representation of its caller, so HHH is required to answer 
about the behavior of that program.

If the input is NOT the representation of that program, then you are 
just admitting to LYING about everything, as that is the fundamental 
operation of the proof program, that the "pathological program" asks its 
copy of the decider to decide on the representation of itself.

So, I guess you are saying you don't think the problem CAN be formed, 
because you idea of computation ability is a step below Turing Complete 
system.

> 
>> by construction. Data can be code. The> contradiction is exactly that 
> HHH's return value makes the simulation
>> of DDD wrong. You can't sidestep that by saying they are different DDD's.
>>
> 
>