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: Thu, 5 Jun 2025 19:44:19 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <9914d151b567bbc13896ac026f2cd6bd162c8e07@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> <101r10f$15d1h$6@dont-email.me>
 <101r355$1adut$2@dont-email.me>
 <d1a485e80c6e75ca0e87f9cac7a2000066ab45de@i2pn2.org>
 <101sh3i$1kh2e$11@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2025 00:16:24 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3465023"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <101sh3i$1kh2e$11@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 6075
Lines: 122

On 6/5/25 12:37 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/5/2025 6:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/4/25 11:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/4/2025 9:56 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 6/4/2025 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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> int main()
>>>> {
>>>>     DDD();     // this
>>>>     HHH(DDD);  // is not the caller of this: this 
>>>> is }              // asking what the above will do
>>>
>>> That is just not the way that computation actually works.
>>> char* WhatIsTheNameOfThePresidentIn2030(int x);
>>> Cannot be derived on the basis of the input.
>>>
>>
>> Which just shows you don't understand how Computations, or even 
>> "truth" actually works.
>>
>> Facts about the future under the control of volitional beings doesn't 
>> have a firm correct answer. (Social Scientist CAN come up with a 
>> distribution of likely answers).
>>
> 
> So you agree that a single integer value is also less
> than enough information to correctly make this prediction.

Not at all, as such a prediction isn't a "function" of an input, but 
will be a fact of some sort.

> 
>> Computations are about deterministic systems, and since programs are 
>> deterministic, questions about programs are valid, even if not all are 
>> actually computable, and THAT question (IS it computable) is one of 
>> the big focuses of Computability Theory.
> 
> HHH cannot report on the behavior of its caller
> because it cannot see its caller in its caller's
> own process context.

But it has (or should have if you built the input right) ALL the code 
that it uses, and thus the input fully specifies what the answer shoudl be.

That HHH can't perform the computation doesn't make the question invalid.

> 
> Even if it could see its caller it is not allowed
> to report on it. It is only allowed to report on
> the behavior that its input actually specifies.
> 
Which *IS* the behavior of its caller, since they are one and the same 
program.

Sorry, you just don't understand what you are talking about, since you 
decided to make yourself an IDIOT about computation theory by deciding 
that learning it would "brainwash" you out of your own brainwashing 
about your lies.