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: Why Peter Olcott is correct
Date: Sun, 18 May 2025 07:12:22 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <55b16cddef03c196c51e615010ccf36cdd7e7352@i2pn2.org>
References: <KA9WP.124192$vK4b.46873@fx09.ams4> <100bbr4$le1d$1@dont-email.me>
 <SraWP.289779$o31.223364@fx04.ams4> <100bdv2$loat$1@dont-email.me>
 <x2bWP.289780$o31.145882@fx04.ams4> <100bfbj$povu$1@dont-email.me>
 <100bj1o$qanf$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 18 May 2025 11:20:54 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="873321"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <100bj1o$qanf$3@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5605
Lines: 113

On 5/17/25 11:09 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/17/2025 9:06 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>> On 18/05/2025 02:51, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On Sun, 18 May 2025 02:42:58 +0100, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 18/05/2025 02:10, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 18 May 2025 02:06:43 +0100, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 18/05/2025 01:11, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the case of pathological input, Peter's SHD only needs to 
>>>>>>> report a
>>>>>>> correct halting result *as if* the simulation was run to completion:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right.  If the simulation is run to completion, that's like a UTM
>>>>>> simulating the input, and equivalent to asking whether the input
>>>>>> halts. This is the case for all inputs, not just "pathological" ones,
>>>>>> whatever they are exactly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PO's DD() calls an "embedded HHH" which aborts its simulation.  If
>>>>>> that DD is simulated to completion it halts, so that is what his SHD
>>>>>> needs to report.  PO has verified this directly, and has published 
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> traces showing DD halting when simulated to completion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> whether we abort, or continue until we run out of stack space makes
>>>>>>> no difference: we are detecting INFINITE recursion which can be
>>>>>>> viewed as non-
>>>>>>> halting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Eh?  PO does have a couple of SHDs that simulate his DD to 
>>>>>> completion,
>>>>>> and they all show DD halting!
>>>>>>     There's no infinite recursion, only some level of finite 
>>>>>> recursive
>>>>>>     simulation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PO gets confused, because his SHD HHH simply /doesn't/ simulate DD to
>>>>>> completion.  It aborts, and then decides non-halting.  That's the
>>>>>> reverse of what you said in the first paragraph.  So your thread 
>>>>>> title
>>>>>> is misleading - PO is actually *incorrect*.  I've corrected the title
>>>>>> to avoid confusion.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, halting the simulation is NOT THE SAME as a halting result of
>>>>> HALTING for what is being simulated.  I have changed the subject title
>>>>> back, you jackass.
>>>>
>>>> Where did I say it was the same?  /YOU/ said above that PO's SHD should
>>>> decide *as if* the simulation was run to completion.  [your
>>>> highlighting].  If DD is simulated to completion it halts,
>>>> so by your logic his SHD should decide halting.  Instead it decides
>>>> neverhalts.
>>>
>>> No, if an IDEAL simulation runs to completion it NEVER completes as the
>>> recursion is INFINITE however a practical simulator has finite resources
>>> (and a valid decider must decide in finite time) so cannot run 
>>> forever so
>>> instead we abort the simulation early if we detect infinite recursion 
>>> with
>>> a correct halting result of NON-HALTING.  This is in accordance with
>>> Flibble's Law.
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>
>> As I said above, the recursion in the case of PO's DD is NOT INFINITE. 
> 
> void DDD()
> {
>    HHH(DDD);
>    return;
> }
> 
> Then show how *DDD SIMULATED BY HHH* halts.
> *Its like you don't even know what recursion is*

THe problem is you have admitted that your DDD isn't a program and thus 
isn't valid.

Also, the question is not does DDD simulated by HHH reach the final 
state but does the correct simulation of DDD reach a final state.

You can only use the simulation of HHH if it is correct, which means it 
can not abort, and thus isn't the HHH that you claim to be correct.

> 
> When I say that Donald Trump is a convicted
> felon and you say "no you are wrong Pope Leo XIV
> is not a convicted felon" you changed my words
> and then rebutted the changed words.

Right, and the DDD that calls the HHH that doesn't abort is not the same 
program as the DDD that calls the HHH that does abort, and thus you 
example shows exactly what you yourself are doing.

> 
> Likewise with
> DDD simulated by HHH
> versus
> DDD simulated by HHH1.
> 

Which just shows that if DDD is the same, that HHH got the wrong answer 
by its aborting.

Just like Donald Trump being a convicted felon didn't change by him 
being elected as president, only posponed the results of that conviction.

The fact that HHH aborts its simulation means that HHH didn't reveal the 
full behavior of its input, and thus it doesn't know what happens. It is 
like Mr Trump saying he didn't do anything wrong because all the legal 
proceedings are paused. He still did the crimes.