Path: ...!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
Subject: Re: My reviewers think that halt deciders must report on the behavior
 of their caller
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2025 07:06:18 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <741875c69cb292110a47d9ab863c264d035283f8@i2pn2.org>
References: <101nq32$99vd$1@dont-email.me> <101or6b$maj5$1@dont-email.me>
 <101pq02$ta6v$4@dont-email.me>
 <15abd00ec5b1e4a13892e85ee6ace9ac10d92c56@i2pn2.org>
 <101qu8f$15bg8$3@dont-email.me> <101qugc$15d1h$3@dont-email.me>
 <101r0au$15bg8$7@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2025 11:42:22 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3388420"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <101r0au$15bg8$7@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3920
Lines: 72

On 6/4/25 10:44 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/4/2025 9:13 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 6/4/2025 10:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/4/2025 8:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/4/25 11:50 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> 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*
>>>>> *People have ignored this for 90 years*
>>>>> *People have ignored this for 90 years*
>>>>>
>>>>> 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:
>>>>
>>>> So?
>>>>
>>>> It *IS* a fact that to be correct, it needs to answer about the 
>>>> direct executiom of the program that input represents.
>>>>
>>>> That is DEFINITION.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Likewise with the definition of Russell's Paradox
>>> until ZFC showed that this definition is complete
>>> nonsense.
>>>
>>
>> But unlike Russel's Paradox, which showed a contradiction in the 
>> axioms of naive set theory, there is no contradiction in the axioms of 
>> computation theory.  It follows from those axioms that no H exists 
>> that performs the below mapping, as you have *explicitly* agreed.
>>
> 
> int main()
> {
>    DDD(); // comp theory does not allow HHH to
> }        // report on the behavior of its caller.
> 

WHere do you get that from?

Your problem seems to be you don't know the meaning of the terms of the 
Theory.

You can't ask the question: "Does your caller Halt?"

You can ask the question: "Does the program your input represents halt?" 
even when that input represents its caller, because who the caller is 
doesn't affect that answer.

All you are doing is showing that you have a fundamental error in your 
view of the theory, not understanding the basic concepts.