Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Every HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input
Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2025 19:43:06 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <cdda593dc5ed5de874f3a85f527117f1cb02e6fc@i2pn2.org>
References: <bvI_P.425446$o31.351189@fx04.ams4>
 <101fkr6$1db6f$1@dont-email.me> <101hd2e$21nfj$1@dont-email.me>
 <101jbrq$31e9g$1@dont-email.me> <101ot6n$mnm6$1@dont-email.me>
 <101pn1n$smpc$2@dont-email.me> <101rhoj$1dp11$1@dont-email.me>
 <101sf1a$1kh2e$5@dont-email.me> <101u73h$252sq$1@dont-email.me>
 <101v7mu$2crgr$3@dont-email.me> <1020sn5$2u3nr$1@dont-email.me>
 <1021g9h$3327l$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2025 23:51:19 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3748038"; 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: <1021g9h$3327l$2@dont-email.me>

On 6/7/25 9:53 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/7/2025 3:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-06-06 17:15:10 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 6/6/2025 2:58 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2025-06-05 16:01:46 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/5/2025 2:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-06-04 15:00:07 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 6/4/2025 2:39 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2025-06-02 05:12:26 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/2025 6:20 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-05-31 19:21:10 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/31/2025 2:11 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott is doing this:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>> DDD(); // DDD calls HHH
>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This is incorrect as it is a category (type) error in the 
>>>>>>>>>>>> form of
>>>>>>>>>>>> conflation of the EXECUTION of DDD with the SIMULATION of 
>>>>>>>>>>>> DDD: to
>>>>>>>>>>>> completely and correctly simulate/analyse DDD there must be 
>>>>>>>>>>>> no execution
>>>>>>>>>>>> of DDD prior to the simulation of DDD.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott should be doing this:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I would have left it there except that many dozens of
>>>>>>>>>>> reviewers have pointed out that they believe that HHH
>>>>>>>>>>> is supposed to report on the behavior of its caller.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A halt decider is required to report on the computation it is 
>>>>>>>>>> asked
>>>>>>>>>> about. There is no requirement that a halt decider knows or 
>>>>>>>>>> can find
>>>>>>>>>> out whether it is called by the program about which is 
>>>>>>>>>> required to
>>>>>>>>>> report. Consequently, whether the computaton asked about calls 
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> decider is irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The *input* to simulating termination analyzer HHH(DDD)
>>>>>>>>> specifies recursive simulation that can never reach its
>>>>>>>>> *simulated "return" instruction final halt state*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If it does then the "input" is not DDD, which specifies a halting
>>>>>>>> behaviour if HHH is a decider.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can say these things only by making
>>>>>>> sure to ignore the verified facts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We can ignore irrelevant facts. But if you ignore relevant 
>>>>>> requirements
>>>>>> you can't prove that your soliution is correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> As long as DDD emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach
>>>>> its own "return" instruction final halt state then
>>>>> DDD is non halting even if it is never simulated.
>>>>
>>>> That is not what "non-halting" means. Anything said about "DDD emulated
>>>> by HHH" is irrelevant. Wikipedia says: "In computability theory, the
>>>> halting problem is the problem of determining, from a description of an
>>>> arbitrary computer program and an input, whether the program will 
>>>> finish
>>>> running, or continue to run forever." Your HHH(DDD) does not do that.
>>>
>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>>      If *simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its*
>>>      *input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D*
>>>      *would never stop running unless aborted* then
>>
>> That is not a definition of the meaning of halting. That is a diagnostic
>> cirterion for a conclusion not shown in the partial quote above. SIpser
>> does not prove the validity of the criterion.
>>
> 
> The above criterion measure is a self-evident truth.

Yes, when the words are given their appropriate meaning,

> 
> In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident
> proposition is a proposition that is known to be true
> by understanding its meaning without proof...
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence
> 

But that statement CAN be proven from the axioms.

Note, in formal system, if something isn't an axiom, and doesn't derive 
from the axioms, it isn't true, but then that goes to the definition of 
"meaning" as all meaning in formal system comes from the axioms.

Of course, if you lie about the meaning of the words, you lie about the 
"self-evidence" of the statement.

Your problem is you don't even understand enough about logic to 
understand that "Self-evidence" isn't a term in Formal Systems, except 
as to how to initaly establish the axioms.

It seems your whole world is based on a big confusion of categories.