Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: dbush 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 12:33:11 -0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 167 Message-ID: <100ssc6$qa2s$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$3@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 24 May 2025 18:33:11 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7bffcf1a053bdddb0127a83d4984dc7b"; logging-data="862300"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/QDgPACbfLEUmc+aMDdlk1" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:9sF+q4LwM+fpqco/Zymne22NNkU= In-Reply-To: <100sr6o$ppn2$3@dont-email.me> Content-Language: en-US On 5/24/2025 12:13 PM, 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. > Nope: On 3/24/2025 10:07 PM, olcott wrote: > A halt decider cannot exist On 4/28/2025 2:47 PM, olcott wrote: > On 4/28/2025 11:54 AM, dbush wrote: >> And the halting function below is not a computable function: >> > > It is NEVER a computable function > >> 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 On 3/14/2025 1:19 PM, olcott wrote: > When we define the HP as having H return a value > corresponding to the halting behavior of input D > and input D can actually does the opposite of whatever > value that H returns, then we have boxed ourselves > in to a problem having no solution. On 6/21/2024 1:22 PM, olcott wrote: > the logical impossibility of specifying a halt decider H > that correctly reports the halt status of input D that is > defined to do the opposite of whatever value that H reports. > Of course this is impossible. On 7/4/2023 12:57 AM, olcott wrote: > If you frame the problem in that a halt decider must divide up finite > strings pairs into those that halt when directly executed and those that > do not, then no single program can do this. On 5/5/2025 5:39 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/5/2025 4:31 PM, dbush wrote: >> Strawman. The square root of a dead rabbit does not exist, but the >> question of whether any arbitrary algorithm X with input Y halts when >> executed directly has a correct answer in all cases. >> > > It has a correct answer that cannot ever be computed On 5/13/2025 5:16 PM, olcott wrote: > There is no time that we are ever going to directly > encode omniscience into a computer program. The ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========