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: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: My reviewers think that halt deciders must report on the behavior
 of their caller
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2025 16:07:21 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <b8e7a597f05663513a7b08172a8f2f66a696e358@i2pn2.org>
References: <101nq32$99vd$1@dont-email.me>
	<a25b36c514731c7946fc2fb5e003c4dda451452e@i2pn2.org>
	<1049jhv$11mmt$2@dont-email.me>
	<89d2edbab76401270efa67a8fbc135d5c47fefab@i2pn2.org>
	<104bjmr$1hqln$16@dont-email.me>
	<3f64fdd81d67415b7b0e305463d950c0c71e2db7@i2pn2.org>
	<EKKdnXZfl9Qpf_T1nZ2dnZfqlJ-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
	<9dcab3b82e32f9eb8473f8bc5361ab2fbef8b8f8@i2pn2.org>
	<104cud2$1r72a$2@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$2@dont-email.me> <104ftep$rafj$1@dont-email.me>
	<104h475$324da$1@dont-email.me>
	<a5f81886d091790185fb6434782dba91ad075fa5@i2pn2.org>
	<104hmkm$35gkb$2@dont-email.me>
	<f4f7163b6a6afcf9886f9d72d5b06075c0592338@i2pn2.org>
	<104i0ar$36mma$1@dont-email.me>
	<775a1f21c8d308989a8ef2a0afaae66c1609912b@i2pn2.org>
	<104jc8l$3jrpl$9@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2025 16:07:21 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3921804"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0

Am Tue, 08 Jul 2025 10:08:05 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 7/8/2025 6:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/7/25 10:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/7/2025 9:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 7/7/25 7:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/7/2025 5:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/7/25 2:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/7/2025 2:36 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>> Op 07.jul.2025 om 05:12 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/6/2025 9:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/6/25 4:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/6/2025 12:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>> And there is no way for HHH to correctly simulate its input
>>>>>>>>>>>> and return an answer
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You insistence that a non-terminating input be simulated until
>>>>>>>>>>> non-existent completion is especially nuts because you have
>>>>>>>>>>> been told about this dozens of times.
>>>>>>>>>>> What the F is wrong with you?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It seems you don't understand those words.
>>>>>>>>>> I don't say that the decider needs to simulate the input to
>>>>>>>>>> completion, but that it needs to be able to actually PROVE that
>>>>>>>>>> if this exact input WAS given to a correct simultor (which
>>>>>>>>>> won't be itself, since it isn't doing the complete simulation)
>>>>>>>>>> will run for an unbounded number of steps.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No decider is ever allowed to report on anything besides the
>>>>>>>>> actual behavior that its input actually specifies.
Ah, but your HHH does report on a *hypothetical* input that wouldn't
call the aborting simulator HHH, but instead a *different* (possibly
similar) simulator that would *not* abort.

>>>>>>>> And HHH does not do that. The input specifies a halting program,
>>>>>>>> because it includes the abort code. But HHH gives up before it
>>>>>>>> reaches that part of the specification and the final halt state.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have corrected you on this too many times.
>>>>>>> You have sufficiently proven that you are dishonest or
>>>>>>> incompetent.
>>>>>>> *This code proves that you are wrong*
>>>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c That you
>>>>>>> are too F-ing stupid to see this is less than no rebuttal at all.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, that code proves that HHH, as defined, always aborts its
>>>>>> simulation of DDD and returns 0,
>>>>> That is counter-factual and you would know this if you had good C++
>>>>> skills.
>>>>>
>>>> How is it "Counter-Factual"?
>>>> It is YOU that is just counter-factual.
>>>>
>>> "No, that code proves that HHH, as defined,
>>>   always aborts its simulation of DDD"
>>> That is a false statement. If you understood the code you would know
>>> your error.
>>>
>> Really, so how does that code NOT aboft its simulation of DDD?
> 
> You have a reading comprehension problem.
> When critique words you are strictly not allowed to change even a single
> word without being dishonest.
> "No, that code proves that HHH as defined
>     always aborts its simulation of DDD"
> If you can't figure how how that is false we have conclusively proved
> your lack of sufficient technical competence.
Wow. Can't you just answer the question? Also, "we" and "proved"? Not
being understood isn't very convincing. So how does HHH not abort?

-- 
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.