Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2025 09:23:16 +0800
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 204
Message-ID: <40fe7f6d8bc92edb617540a000ea9c79a8eb9419.camel@gmail.com>
References: <yU0_P.1529838$4AM6.776697@fx17.ams4>
	 <102cdon$23jal$1@dont-email.me>
	 <2e40a87aeb9e28ce23b5ebf3fcbf23dad6728a9b.camel@gmail.com>
	 <102cg6f$246h5$1@dont-email.me>
	 <822e204898d419545ca400a9088970f0b6a5107f.camel@gmail.com>
	 <102ckje$25dg0$2@dont-email.me>
	 <c5adb4ff9ac0a31da990ff83ab1ef7f242a2f7a7.camel@gmail.com>
	 <102cm0u$25dg0$3@dont-email.me>
	 <610e2a54b66e8576b80bda3a0fe188d025b9798e.camel@gmail.com>
	 <102cp0e$26clp$1@dont-email.me>
	 <d4b02c8deb6dd72c7bf143b07c2752d93b825b1d.camel@gmail.com>
	 <102crbv$26rt0$1@dont-email.me>
	 <ade2f19a880169bbaf09794b496e585b7eb8b677.camel@gmail.com>
	 <102ctbg$26rt0$2@dont-email.me>
	 <f09964feafdca25ea8efbe546868084bcd9df3a0.camel@gmail.com>
	 <102d082$28067$1@dont-email.me>
	 <a480d0b388903cc2c039fb39792007fc8c88841f.camel@gmail.com>
	 <102d4fa$291mi$1@dont-email.me>
	 <27181e2fc0e06453f53994e2a92e3a5c8808e581.camel@gmail.com>
	 <102d6ge$29fp7$1@dont-email.me>
	 <ce43ca906ca40618fefd39f3fe2388b099bff58b.camel@gmail.com>
	 <102d8bk$29pam$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Injection-Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2025 03:23:17 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="510f0392386eb68cf3ab791111371949";
	logging-data="2426923"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+v/nqjAskHCT6Nh/yWDnrB"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.56.2 (3.56.2-1.fc42)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ok8eu3fEEVPfp6anQrecwZDDtQU=
In-Reply-To: <102d8bk$29pam$1@dont-email.me>

On Wed, 2025-06-11 at 19:52 -0500, olcott wrote:
> On 6/11/2025 7:34 PM, wij wrote:
> > On Wed, 2025-06-11 at 19:20 -0500, olcott wrote:
> > > On 6/11/2025 7:03 PM, wij wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2025-06-11 at 18:45 -0500, olcott wrote:
> > > > > On 6/11/2025 6:25 PM, wij wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, 2025-06-11 at 17:33 -0500, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > On 6/11/2025 4:57 PM, wij wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Wed, 2025-06-11 at 16:44 -0500, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On 6/11/2025 4:23 PM, wij wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 2025-06-11 at 16:10 -0500, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On 6/11/2025 3:59 PM, wij wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 2025-06-11 at 15:30 -0500, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On 6/11/2025 2:45 PM, wij wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 2025-06-11 at 14:39 -0500, olcott wrote=
:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 6/11/2025 2:31 PM, wij wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 2025-06-11 at 14:14 -0500, olcott w=
rote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 6/11/2025 1:25 PM, wij wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 2025-06-11 at 12:59 -0500, olco=
tt wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes all other people (especially =
Dennis Bush) are saying
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that H(D) is required to report o=
n the behavior of the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > direct execution of D() never not=
icing that this stupidly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > requires H(D) to report on the be=
havior of its caller.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If the H above means the H that the=
 HP refers to. The H is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > required to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > report its argument's behavior (ie.=
 by H(D)). But NOT required
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > simulation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It turns out that no one ever noticed=
 that simulating halt
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > deciders nullify the HP counter-examp=
le input in that this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > input cannot possibly reach its contr=
adictory part.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The HP does not care what D does (s=
imply to say).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Everyone says that H(D) must re[port =
on the behavior of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the direct execution of D().
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is what the HP asks.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The HP only requires: H(D)=3D=3D1 i=
ff D() halts
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > int main()
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=
=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 D(); // calls H(D)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which requires H(D) to report on the =
behavior of its
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > caller instead of reporting on the be=
havior that its
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > input actually specifies.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is no problem. H does not care wha=
t D does inside (simply to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > say).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The HP simply asks for a H that "H(D)=
=3D=3D1 iff D() halts".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which requires H to report on something t=
hat it cannot possibly see.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the contrary, what the HP proves is very=
 useful.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not talking about the halting problem, I=
 have always
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > been talking about the conventional halting p=
roblem proof.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > THIS PROOF IS WRONG
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > When talking about proof, we say it is valid or=
 not. By doing so, we have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to unambiguously pose the problem and the deriv=
ation to the conclusion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The HP proof just did that.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > It may seem that way if you pay less than 100%
> > > > > > > > > > > > > complete attention.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The HP proof depends on an *INPUT* that does
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the opposite of whatever value that H returns
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and no such *INPUT* can possibly exist.
> > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > That is absolutely correct. No such *INPUT* (i.e. D=
) can possible exit is
> > > > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > > the H inside D does not exist at all.
> > > > > > > > > > > > So, if the H is assumed to exist, then D will exist=
 to make H undecidable.
> > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > There is no *input* to any termination analyzer
> > > > > > > > > > > that can do the opposite of whatever value that
> > > > > > > > > > > this termination analyzer returns
> > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > Your reinterpretation of of HP case is wrong.
> > > > > > > > > > Your D or H is not the case mention in the HP proof.
> > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > There cannot possibly exist any D mine or
> > > > > > > > > anyone else's that is encoded to do the opposite
> > > > > > > > > of whatever value that H returns.
> > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > Why not? D and H are supposed to be TM (or C function).
> > > > > > > > If the D cannot do the opposite of whatever value that H re=
turns, then
> > > > > > > > that D is not powerful enough to be a TM, not an interestin=
g case.
> > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > Can you be your biological mother's biological father?
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > > What is the same reason? What's the relationship of 1+1=3D2 rel=
ates to HP?
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > It is for this same reason that the function's caller
> > > > > > > cannot simultaneously be its input.
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > > D and H belong to the same set of TM equivalent stuff.
> > > > >=20
> > > > > Yes and we have the exact same issue with TM's it
> > > > > is merely more difficult to see.
> > > > >=20
> > > > > I am not going to get into that until after you totally
> > > > > understand this at the C level. I am unwilling to talk
> > > > > about this endlessly in circles.
> > > >=20
> > > > The problem is that you don't know TM and C as 1-year CS student do=
es.
> > > > All the people here have problem to get the answer fits your level =
of understanding.
> > > >=20
> > > > > > D has to be able to perform exactly H's function (if D is a TM =
and if H exists).
> > > > > > Otherwise, that D is not the counter-example mentioned in the H=
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========