Path: ...!news.misty.com!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: Sun, 25 May 2025 13:11:28 +0300 Organization: - Lines: 120 Message-ID: <100uqcg$1anld$1@dont-email.me> References: <100ktr7$2reaa$1@dont-email.me> <100l09v$2tae8$5@dont-email.me> <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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 25 May 2025 12:11:28 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="fde75ab023af628ce89d55dd04a64d94"; logging-data="1400493"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/zSlabMp3U6rEi1D7F5NP2" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:av4vOiipcGQNx7Tf4csgUgz8Q7k= Bytes: 7003 On 2025-05-24 16:13:12 +0000, olcott said: > 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. It is a sin to lie about another persons words. > 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. False. The reason is not the same. No function can report on the value of the square root of a dead cat because a desd cat has no square root. But eevery caller of HHH has some behaviour that includes calling HHH. -- Mikko