Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: My reviewers think that halt deciders must report on the behavior of their caller Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2025 15:07:10 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 53 Message-ID: <101vhpe$2egad$4@dont-email.me> References: <101nq32$99vd$1@dont-email.me> <101or6b$maj5$1@dont-email.me> <101pq02$ta6v$4@dont-email.me> <101ri5b$1drjj$1@dont-email.me> <101sf41$1kh2e$6@dont-email.me> <101u89n$251rg$2@dont-email.me> <101v8o8$2d3v6$3@dont-email.me> <101vf33$2egad$2@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2025 22:07:11 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2b1d5bc16a4dc23d074aaf02c68974e0"; logging-data="2572621"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX190/i2qABxBvXj7dNRnvVer" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:smuvU26KJBYlF+bkbApkc0XSO6k= X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250606-4, 6/6/2025), Outbound message In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US On 6/6/2025 2:30 PM, joes wrote: > Am Fri, 06 Jun 2025 14:21:07 -0500 schrieb olcott: >> On 6/6/2025 2:18 PM, joes wrote: >>> Am Fri, 06 Jun 2025 12:32:56 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>> On 6/6/2025 3:19 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>> Op 05.jun.2025 om 18:03 schreef olcott: >>>>>> On 6/5/2025 2:48 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> On 2025-06-04 15:50:25 +0000, olcott said: > >>>>>>>> The only possible way that HHH can report on the direct execution >>>>>>>> of DDD() is for HHH to report on the behavior of its caller: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The relevant question is not what HHH can report but what it does >>>>>>> and what it is required. DDD() is known to halt so HHH(DDD) is >>>>>>> required to report that it halts. But HHH(DDD) does not report so. >>>>>>> >>>>>> The only DDD that is known to halt is the DDD that calls HHH(DDD). >>>>>> HHH(DDD) IS NOT ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE BEHAVIOR OF ITS CALLER. >>>>>> >>>>> Counterfactual. It has nothing to do with the caller. World-class >>>>> simulators show that the exact same input halts. >>>> >>>> You are incorrectly calling it an *INPUT* when it never was an actual >>>> *INPUT* it was always a *NON-INPUT CALLER* >>>> People have made this same stupid mistake for 90 years. >>> The thing is, DDD is both, >> >> int main() >> { >> DDD; // calls HHH(DDD) >> } >> >> *The input to HHH IS NOT ITS CALLER* > > DDD is DDD. > DDD correctly emulated by HHH has a different sequence of steps than DDD correctly emulated by HHH1 I have proven this many times yet it is simply too difficult for anyone here to understand. >>> by construction. Data can be code. The contradiction is exactly that >>> HHH's return value makes the simulation >>> of DDD wrong. You can't sidestep that by saying they are different >>> DDD's. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer