Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Every HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2025 11:49:07 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 131 Message-ID: <1029nm3$1ah2f$10@dont-email.me> References: <101fkr6$1db6f$1@dont-email.me> <101hd2e$21nfj$1@dont-email.me> <101jbrq$31e9g$1@dont-email.me> <101ot6n$mnm6$1@dont-email.me> <101pn1n$smpc$2@dont-email.me> <101rhoj$1dp11$1@dont-email.me> <101sf1a$1kh2e$5@dont-email.me> <101u73h$252sq$1@dont-email.me> <101v7mu$2crgr$3@dont-email.me> <1020sn5$2u3nr$1@dont-email.me> <1021g9h$3327l$2@dont-email.me> <10238jh$3m5et$1@dont-email.me> <102395t$3m1s3$3@dont-email.me> <1028lj2$13oo6$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2025 18:49:08 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="668213ca1180824494e01b33326cf4e0"; logging-data="1393743"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19CCYzgghCjRnkYp1enDlZA" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:JNiGXEjg12ZIyI7rdNfigqK90e4= X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250610-6, 6/10/2025), Outbound message In-Reply-To: <1028lj2$13oo6$1@dont-email.me> Content-Language: en-US On 6/10/2025 2:07 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2025-06-08 06:04:45 +0000, olcott said: > >> On 6/8/2025 12:54 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 2025-06-07 13:53:53 +0000, olcott said: >>> >>>> On 6/7/2025 3:19 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 2025-06-06 17:15:10 +0000, olcott said: >>>>> >>>>>> On 6/6/2025 2:58 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> On 2025-06-05 16:01:46 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 6/5/2025 2:42 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2025-06-04 15:00:07 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 6/4/2025 2:39 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-06-02 05:12:26 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/2025 6:20 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-05-31 19:21:10 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/31/2025 2:11 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott is doing this: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int main() >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDD(); // DDD calls HHH >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is incorrect as it is a category (type) error in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> form of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conflation of the EXECUTION of DDD with the SIMULATION of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDD: to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> completely and correctly simulate/analyse DDD there must >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be no execution >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of DDD prior to the simulation of DDD. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott should be doing this: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int main() >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH(DDD); >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would have left it there except that many dozens of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> reviewers have pointed out that they believe that HHH >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is supposed to report on the behavior of its caller. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> A halt decider is required to report on the computation it >>>>>>>>>>>>> is asked >>>>>>>>>>>>> about. There is no requirement that a halt decider knows or >>>>>>>>>>>>> can find >>>>>>>>>>>>> out whether it is called by the program about which is >>>>>>>>>>>>> required to >>>>>>>>>>>>> report. Consequently, whether the computaton asked about >>>>>>>>>>>>> calls the >>>>>>>>>>>>> decider is irrelevant. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> void DDD() >>>>>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD); >>>>>>>>>>>>    return; >>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The *input* to simulating termination analyzer HHH(DDD) >>>>>>>>>>>> specifies recursive simulation that can never reach its >>>>>>>>>>>> *simulated "return" instruction final halt state* >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If it does then the "input" is not DDD, which specifies a >>>>>>>>>>> halting >>>>>>>>>>> behaviour if HHH is a decider. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You can say these things only by making >>>>>>>>>> sure to ignore the verified facts. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We can ignore irrelevant facts. But if you ignore relevant >>>>>>>>> requirements >>>>>>>>> you can't prove that your soliution is correct. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As long as DDD emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach >>>>>>>> its own "return" instruction final halt state then >>>>>>>> DDD is non halting even if it is never simulated. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That is not what "non-halting" means. Anything said about "DDD >>>>>>> emulated >>>>>>> by HHH" is irrelevant. Wikipedia says: "In computability theory, the >>>>>>> halting problem is the problem of determining, from a description >>>>>>> of an >>>>>>> arbitrary computer program and an input, whether the program will >>>>>>> finish >>>>>>> running, or continue to run forever." Your HHH(DDD) does not do >>>>>>> that. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>      If *simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its* >>>>>>      *input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D* >>>>>>      *would never stop running unless aborted* then >>>>> >>>>> That is not a definition of the meaning of halting. That is a >>>>> diagnostic It is one definition of non-halting in that it logically entails never reaching the simulated "return" statement final halt state. >>>>> cirterion for a conclusion not shown in the partial quote above. >>>>> SIpser >>>>> does not prove the validity of the criterion. >>>> >>>> The above criterion measure is a self-evident truth. >>> >>> So you don't disagree. >> >> Here is another way of saying it. >> void DDD() >> { >>    HHH(DDD); >>    return; >> } >> >> The *input* to simulating termination analyzer HHH(DDD) >> specifies recursive simulation that can never reach its >> *simulated "return" instruction final halt state* > > You don't need more ways to say that you don't disagree. > -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer