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: "Fred. Zwarts" Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_Analysis_of_Flibble=E2=80=99s_Latest=3A_Detecting_v?= =?UTF-8?Q?s=2E_Simulating_Infinite_Recursion_ZFC?= Date: Sat, 24 May 2025 11:59:08 +0200 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 45 Message-ID: <100s59d$kqg3$1@dont-email.me> References: <100kt0c$2tae8$3@dont-email.me> <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$1@dont-email.me> <100r3vi$b5vm$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 24 May 2025 11:59:10 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8c305cec74a1f8d9646d533051f06774"; logging-data="682499"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX187N2PfOPnHztjfNVrdBqWJ" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:2nJkOmfrY5hAsK44hRLqA1GiWK4= Content-Language: nl, en-GB In-Reply-To: <100r3vi$b5vm$1@dont-email.me> Bytes: 4067 Op 24.mei.2025 om 02:30 schreef olcott: > On 5/23/2025 7:08 PM, Mike Terry wrote: >> On 23/05/2025 19:37, Keith Thompson wrote: >>> Ben Bacarisse writes: >>>> Mike Terry writes: >>> [...] >>>> And the big picture is that this can be done because false is the >>>> correct halting decision for some halting computations.  He has said >>>> this explicitly (as I have posted before) but he has also explained it >>>> in words: >>>> >>>> | When-so-ever a halt decider correctly determines that its input would >>>> | never halt unless forced to halt by this halt decider this halt >>>> | decider has made a correct not-halting determination. >>> >>> Hmm.  I don't read that the way you do.  Did I miss something? >>> >>> It assumes that the input is a non-halting computation ("its input >>> would never halt") and asserts that, in certain circumstances, >>> his mythical halt decider correctly determines that the input >>> is non-halting. >>> >>> When his mythical halt decider correctly determines that its input >>> doesn't halt, it has made a correct non-halting determination. >>> It's just a tautology. >> >> You're reading it the way most people would, and in the way I said >> Sipser would be interpreting the oft-quoted "Sipser quote".  I don't >> think you've missed anything particularly. >> >> 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. > > In other words you expect that the HHH that DD calls > to report on the behavior of its caller? > > How the f-ck can it do that? All information is present in the input specification, including the code of DDD and all function called by DDD up to the OS-level. So, HHH has all the information needed to see the behaviour of the caller. That HHH has a bug that prevents it see the full specification does not change the fact that the specification is in the input.