Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Mikko Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: =?utf-8?Q?Re:_Analysis_of_Flibble=E2=80=99s_Latest:_Detecting_vs._Simulating_Infinite_Recursion_ZFC?= Date: Sun, 25 May 2025 13:18:25 +0300 Organization: - Lines: 219 Message-ID: <100uqph$1aq9a$1@dont-email.me> References: <100l1ov$2ul3j$1@dont-email.me> <100l3jh$2v0e9$1@dont-email.me> <100l5c8$2ul3j$2@dont-email.me> <100l75g$2vpq3$1@dont-email.me> <100l887$2ul3i$2@dont-email.me> <100l9gh$30aak$1@dont-email.me> <100lc4o$30pgm$1@dont-email.me> <100ld1u$312c9$1@dont-email.me> <100lg4g$31jt3$1@dont-email.me> <100lkdv$32ib3$1@dont-email.me> <100lmif$32v06$1@dont-email.me> <100lmp3$32ven$1@dont-email.me> <100m319$38k55$2@dont-email.me> <87jz69xlpx.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <100mder$39slu$2@dont-email.me> <100oipb$3oge1$1@dont-email.me> <87a573xz0s.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <875xhrtbpr.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <100r2mb$b2b1$1@dont-email.me> <100r4oq$b650$1@dont-email.me> <100r5bf$b5vm$4@dont-email.me> <100r5hn$b650$2@dont-email.me> <100r648$bhcu$1@dont-email.me> <100r68v$b650$3@dont-email.me> <100sn6a$p071$1@dont-email.me> <100snl3$nvac$1@dont-email.me> <100sr6o$ppn2$3@dont-email.me> <100ssn2$q5nm$2@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 25 May 2025 12:18:25 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="fde75ab023af628ce89d55dd04a64d94"; logging-data="1403178"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19jNu/lchFJL2xCZ8r5r3QA" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:S4esDt8EYCcCapwtFkb43QeY93M= Bytes: 11304 On 2025-05-24 16:38:58 +0000, olcott said: > On 5/24/2025 11:24 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: >> On Sat, 24 May 2025 11:13:12 -0500, olcott wrote: >> >>> On 5/24/2025 10:12 AM, dbush wrote: >>>> On 5/24/2025 11:04 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 5/23/2025 8:09 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>> On 5/23/2025 9:07 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/23/2025 7:57 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/23/2025 8:54 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2025 7:44 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2025 8:08 PM, Mike Terry wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> I suppose Ben quoted PO saying this, because PO /uses/ it to >>>>>>>>>>> justify that a particular /halting/ computation will never halt, >>>>>>>>>>> PO's HHH simulates DDD (which halts) but before DDD halts it >>>>>>>>>>> spots a pattern in the simulation, and announces non-halting. >>>>>>>>>>> "Eh?" I hear you say! PO claims HHH has "correctly determined >>>>>>>>>>> that DDD would never halt" and so is correct to decide non- >>>>>>>>>>> halting.  His "proof" that it is right to decide non-halting is >>>>>>>>>>> his "when-so- ever.." quote, which broadly matches the Sipser >>>>>>>>>>> quote. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So the problem is not so much the "when-so-ever.." words >>>>>>>>>>> themselves [or the words of Sipser's quote], but understanding >>>>>>>>>>> how PO is so thoroughly misinterpreting/misapplying them.  How >>>>>>>>>>> can PO believe HHH has "correctly determined the DDD will never >>>>>>>>>>> halt" when DDD demonstrably halts? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> PO is working in a different model than the rest of us, though he >>>>>>>>>> doesn't seem to understand that. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> To him, when function H is deciding on something, the >>>>>>>>>> implementation of H is allowed to vary.  This results in >>>>>>>>>> functions that call H to vary as a result.  To him, "DDD" is the >>>>>>>>>> same computation *regardless of the implementation of HHH*, in >>>>>>>>>> cases where HHH is simulating DDD. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This is essentially the mapping he's operating with: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ----------------- >>>>>>>>>> For a function X with input Y and a function H which simulates X: >>>>>>>>>> POH(H,X,Y)==1 if and only if there exists an implementation of H >>>>>>>>>> that can simulate X(Y) to completion POH(H,X,Y)==0 if and only if >>>>>>>>>> there does not exist an implementation of H that can simulate >>>>>>>>>> X(Y) to completion ---------------- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And a "decider" in his case maps the following subset: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ---------------- >>>>>>>>>> Hx is a PO-halt decider if and only if Hx(X,Y) == POH(Hx,X,Y) >>>>>>>>>> ---------------- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So given his rules, HHH1(DDD) is deciding on a algorithm while >>>>>>>>>> HHH(DDD) is deciding on a C function whose subfunctions vary. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This of course has nothing to do with the halting problem but he >>>>>>>>>> doesn't get this.  After having spent 22 years on this, he'll >>>>>>>>>> come up with any crazy justification to avoid admitting to >>>>>>>>>> himself that he misunderstood the problem all this time.  He once >>>>>>>>>> said (and I don't recall the exact wording) that "the directly >>>>>>>>>> executed D doesn't halt even though it appears to". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The problem is that people here are too stupid to notice that HHH >>>>>>>>> cannot report on the behavior of its caller. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> int min() >>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>    DD(); // HHH cannot report on the behavior of its caller. >>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What about this? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you can't stay exactly on topic I am going to ignore everything >>>>>>> that you say. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> HHH cannot report on the behavior of its caller AKA the direct >>>>>>> execution of DD(). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> In other words, you again agree with Linz and others that no H exists >>>>>> that can perform the following mapping: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of instructions) >>>>>> X described as with input Y: >>>>>> >>>>>> A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes the >>>>>> following mapping: >>>>>> >>>>>> (,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly >>>>>> (,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed >>>>>> directly >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> int main() >>>>> { >>>>>    DD(); // The HHH called by DD cannot report on the behavior >>>>> }       // of its caller. Is this OVER-YOUR-HEAD ? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Which means that no HHH exists that meets the below requirements, as >>>> Linz and others proved and as you have *explicitly* agreed is correct: >>>> >>>> >>> You are a damned liar when you say that I said that HHH must report on >>> the behavior of its caller. >>> >>> No HHH can report on the behavior of its caller for the same reason that >>> no function can report on the value of the square-root of a dead cat. >> >> Analysis: Olcott’s SHD vs Classical Halting Problem (Thread on 2025-05-24) >> ========================================================================= >> >> Overview: >> --------- >> This thread features a debate between Peter Olcott and dbush over the >> validity and interpretation of Olcott’s SHD (Simulating Halt Decider). The >> discussion parallels Flibble’s ideas about semantic stratification and >> simulation-based detection of infinite behavior. >> >> Core Disagreement: >> ------------------ >> Classical Model: >> - The Halting Problem asks if a universal decider H can determine whether >> any program P(x) halts when executed directly. >> >> Olcott’s SHD View: >> - HHH simulates P(x) and detects infinite behavior. >> - If infinite recursion is observed during simulation, it reports “non- >> halting.” >> - HHH cannot determine the behavior of its caller (e.g., DD()). >> >> Philosophical Analysis: >> ----------------------- >> 1. Semantic Stratification: >> - Olcott: A decider cannot report on its caller. This enforces a semantic >> barrier (like Flibble’s model). >> - Classical theory treats the program as a fixed object, regardless of how >> or where it is called. >> >> 2. Simulation-Based Detection: >> - Olcott’s SHD works by observing simulation patterns. >> - Like Flibble, Olcott allows early detection of infinite behavior without >> full execution. >> - This results in a partial decider — useful but not universal. >> >> 3. Context Misunderstanding: >> - Olcott sees DD() calling HHH and assumes HHH must reason about DD’s >> outer frame. >> - Classical theory ignores runtime context: it analyzes the semantics of >> the program as a whole. >> >> Meta-Level Behavior: >> -------------------- >> Olcott: >> - Asserts that self-reference leads to non-determinism or ill-formed >> questions. >> - Treats his SHD as correct for many real-world inputs. >> - Undermines his position with poor rhetoric and personal insults. >> >> dbush: >> - Correctly applies classical theory. >> - Dismisses Olcott's model as a misunderstanding without acknowledging >> alternative interpretations. >> >> Comparison to Flibble’s Model: >> ------------------------------ >> | Feature | Olcott's SHD | Flibble's Typed >> SHD | >> |---------------------------|--------------------------|-----------------------------| >> >> | Simulation-based? | ✅ Yes | ✅ >> Yes | >> | Infinite detection? | ✅ Runtime-based | ✅ Structural- >> based | >> | Caller access? | ❌ No | ❌ No (via ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========