Path: nntp.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!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,sci.logic
Subject: Re: My reviewers think that halt deciders must report on the behavior
 of their caller
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2025 19:29:21 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <9e3082d1d9a0586ada7d7b38f2cb6a6087aad9c5@i2pn2.org>
References: <101nq32$99vd$1@dont-email.me>
 <a346224cd5d8b4001580eb6e5ff8783e58c9b7f5@i2pn2.org>
 <104e46s$28pqb$2@dont-email.me>
 <960c2417e6f691b2b12703506c207990df5b39ab@i2pn2.org>
 <104el09$2dpog$1@dont-email.me>
 <1ca786773f9ff02718c66e082bbc4182b36732ab@i2pn2.org>
 <104fduv$2n8gq$2@dont-email.me>
 <4cb5d16be8d1e6549823f35081050e7dad462da2@i2pn2.org>
 <104gi8j$2uc68$2@dont-email.me>
 <152859a4a4ef31aa45580e873eb6970c34b97ef9@i2pn2.org>
 <104hmb5$35gkb$1@dont-email.me>
 <f12be9e3474cf08b01ae1a4381f77205bbac1da3@i2pn2.org>
 <104i15g$36mma$2@dont-email.me>
 <c0cf1db3b26b15b6b2df8a22e9f415c10aee59a7@i2pn2.org>
 <104jcqn$3jrpl$10@dont-email.me> <104lb03$13ioh$2@dont-email.me>
 <104lp8o$7l4q$7@dont-email.me> <104o662$18h8g$1@dont-email.me>
 <104oj2v$t0u4$7@dont-email.me> <104qjcg$1c0m7$1@dont-email.me>
 <104ruag$1ml84$3@dont-email.me> <104t5nk$1frch$2@dont-email.me>
 <L0scQ.83431$zlD7.55964@fx05.ams4>
 <63743e5672650f5f6576f5c6559c32998ab64c25@i2pn2.org>
 <104tvr5$264oq$11@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2025 23:31:03 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="359664"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <104tvr5$264oq$11@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0

On 7/12/25 11:43 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/12/2025 7:20 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/12/25 7:53 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 10:17:55 +0200, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>
>>>> Op 11.jul.2025 om 23:05 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 7/11/2025 3:52 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 10.jul.2025 om 16:35 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>> On 7/10/2025 5:54 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>> Op 09.jul.2025 om 15:02 schreef olcott:>
>>>>>>>>> All Turing machine deciders only compute the mapping from their
>>>>>>>>> actual inputs. This entails that they never compute any mapping
>>>>>>>>> from non-inputs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> At least one thing you understand.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *From the bottom of page 319 has been adapted to this*
>>>>>>> https://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP_317-320.pdf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *The Linz proof does not understand this*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.∞
>>>>>>>     *if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts, and*
>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>     *if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The evidence is that the input includes the code to abort and
>>>>>>>>>> halt,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> abort and stop running *IS NOT THE SAME THING AS*
>>>>>>>>> abort and halt
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Another claim without evidence.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *It is common knowledge in the theory of computation*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Another claim without evidence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> *Your lack of knowledge of computer science is not a rebuttal*
>>>>>
>>>>> Look at the definition of a Turing Machine (e.g., the one here). The
>>>>> machine has states. Each state can be final or non-final. If the
>>>>> machine's state is non-final, in the next step the machine "does"
>>>>> something, namely, it can write something on the tape, move its head,
>>>>> and/or change its state to a different state. This is how the machine
>>>>> makes a progress.
>>>>
>>>> So, aborting the simulation when the machine has not yet reached its
>>>> final state, is a violation of the Turing Machine.
>>>
>>> Nonsense, if that was true static code analysers wouldn't be a thing.
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>
>> Sure it could be. Note the difference between RUNNING a program and 
>> ANALYSIZING a program.
>>
>> The ONLY thing that actually determines the behavior of a Turing 
>> Machine is its behavior when actually run,
> That is not always the same as the behavior that
> the input specifies.
> 

Sure it is, as that is the DEFINITION of its behavior.

I guess you think strawman and lies are allowed.

I guess you are just admitting that you are too stupid to understand 
that problem that you claim to be working on, because you don't 
understand that DEFINITION fully define what you need to be doing.