Path: 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: Mon, 7 Jul 2025 22:18:59 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <f4f7163b6a6afcf9886f9d72d5b06075c0592338@i2pn2.org>
References: <101nq32$99vd$1@dont-email.me> <101oa30$db96$4@dont-email.me>
 <101obb4$hd6o$4@dont-email.me> <101oc24$hlr6$2@dont-email.me>
 <101ocpc$hd6o$7@dont-email.me> <101od0p$i3m6$2@dont-email.me>
 <1049edr$10io1$2@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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2025 02:25:03 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3842114"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <104hmkm$35gkb$2@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US

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:
>>>>>>>> On 7/6/25 11:19 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *EVERY BOT FIGURES THIS OUT ON ITS OWN*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, it just isn't smart enough to detect that you lied in your 
>>>>>>>> premise.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There is no way that DDD simulated by HHH (according
>>>>>>>>> to the semantics of the C programming language)
>>>>>>>>> can possibly reach its own "return" statement final
>>>>>>>>> halt state.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>> 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.

Do you not agree that the code for HHH in Halt7.c DOES abort its simulation?

And that you have "defined" that the code from Halt7.c is in memory when 
your HHH is simulating "the input" and thus that is PART of the input?

And, because that file defines the function "HHH", there can be no other 
external function named HHH in the program due to the one-definition rule?

You seem to have a fundamental problem with truth-telling, or you could 
say which of my statements was wrong.