Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: This function proves that only the outermost HHH examines the execution trace
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2024 10:27:45 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 55
Message-ID: <v87g9h$d073$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v80h07$2su8m$3@dont-email.me> <v82bi4$39v6n$4@dont-email.me> <v82tr5$3dftr$2@dont-email.me> <v82vtl$3dq41$2@dont-email.me> <v830hg$3dftr$9@dont-email.me> <v83des$2nhr$1@news.muc.de> <v83dp3$3g9s7$1@dont-email.me> <v852m1$3sfas$1@dont-email.me> <v86loe$54o5$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2024 09:27:46 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8e58f72711ec75ad1cce668a3c79d05a";
	logging-data="426211"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/lxKqbB82sr/N8Te4r3hOM"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:HkyUzvWUxTMoTalZwg53U8xj1E8=
Bytes: 3278

On 2024-07-28 23:54:54 +0000, olcott said:

> On 7/28/2024 4:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-07-27 18:20:19 +0000, olcott said:
>> 
>>> On 7/27/2024 1:14 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Stopping running is not the same as halting.
>>>>> DDD emulated by HHH stops running when its emulation has been aborted.
>>>>> This is not the same as reaching its ret instruction and terminating
>>>>> normally (AKA halting).
>>>> 
>>>> I think you're wrong, here.  All your C programs are a stand in for
>>>> turing machines.  A turing machine is either running or halted.  There is
>>>> no third state "aborted".
>>> 
>>> Until you take the conventional ideas of
>>> (a) UTM
>>> (b) TM Description
>>> (c) Decider
>>> and combine them together to become a simulating partial halt decider.
>> 
>> You also need the conventional ideas of halting and halt decider.
>> The latter is largely a combination of the conventional ideas of
>> decider and halting but also involves the conventional of
>> prediction, so you need that, too.
>> 
>> Although the conventional idea of testing is not relevant to the 
>> construction of a simulating partial halt decider it is helpful to 
>> presentation of the
>> result, especially if your target audience contains software engineers. 
>> If your target audience is mainly mathematicians the convnetional idea 
>> of proofs is more useful because in that case most of your presentation 
>> must be proofs.
> 
> My ideas must be anchored in fully specified running software
> otherwise the false assumptions made by computer science people
> remain hidden.

There is no "must" there. You may present your ideas whichever way you
think is the best for your purposes.

One good way to avoid false assumptions is to clearly state what is
assumed instead. Sometimes it may be necessary to clearly state what
is not assumed.

> Even when I slap them in the face with proven facts they deny
> these proven facts on the basis of their indoctrination.

Facts are never proven. They are observed.

-- 
Mikko