Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!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: Mon, 26 May 2025 12:18:39 +0300 Organization: - Lines: 233 Message-ID: <1011blf$1uc50$1@dont-email.me> References: <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> <100uqph$1aq9a$1@dont-email.me> <100v9b8$1d5lg$5@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 26 May 2025 11:18:39 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="cdaa97a52dbedafba916f70cac401cf3"; logging-data="2044064"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+X35lLP//qPvuY0gNhDudT" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:HLFVOAvMmryjhy2bMinoivSUPq0= Bytes: 12539 On 2025-05-25 14:26:47 +0000, olcott said: > On 5/25/2025 5:18 AM, Mikko wrote: >> 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                      | ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========