Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Mikko Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: My reviewers think that halt deciders must report on the behavior of their caller Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2025 11:37:43 +0300 Organization: - Lines: 57 Message-ID: <104g10n$2r52v$1@dont-email.me> References: <101nq32$99vd$1@dont-email.me> <101o913$db96$2@dont-email.me> <101o9rb$hd6o$1@dont-email.me> <101oa30$db96$4@dont-email.me> <101obb4$hd6o$4@dont-email.me> <101oc24$hlr6$2@dont-email.me> <101ocpc$hd6o$7@dont-email.me> <101od0p$i3m6$2@dont-email.me> <1049edr$10io1$2@dont-email.me> <1049jhv$11mmt$2@dont-email.me> <89d2edbab76401270efa67a8fbc135d5c47fefab@i2pn2.org> <104bjmr$1hqln$16@dont-email.me> <3f64fdd81d67415b7b0e305463d950c0c71e2db7@i2pn2.org> <9dcab3b82e32f9eb8473f8bc5361ab2fbef8b8f8@i2pn2.org> <104cud2$1r72a$2@dont-email.me> <104e46s$28pqb$2@dont-email.me> <960c2417e6f691b2b12703506c207990df5b39ab@i2pn2.org> <104el09$2dpog$1@dont-email.me> <1ca786773f9ff02718c66e082bbc4182b36732ab@i2pn2.org> <104fduv$2n8gq$2@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2025 10:37:43 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="74139872e41d5936ab037b276ce52aef"; logging-data="2987103"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/poyQgMtLbMpWckETFsoc2" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:ChV7L7iL0BCIzByb2P+Dio1sQPw= On 2025-07-07 03:12:30 +0000, olcott said: > On 7/6/2025 9:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 7/6/25 4:06 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/6/2025 12:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 7/6/25 11:19 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>> >>>>> void DDD() >>>>> { >>>>>    HHH(DDD); >>>>>    return; >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> *EVERY BOT FIGURES THIS OUT ON ITS OWN* >>>> >>>> No, it just isn't smart enough to detect that you lied in your premise. >>>> >>>>> There is no way that DDD simulated by HHH (according >>>>> to the semantics of the C programming language) >>>>> can possibly reach its own "return" statement final >>>>> halt state. >>>> >>>> And there is no way for HHH to correctly simulate its input and return >>>> an answer >>>> >>> >>> You insistence that a non-terminating input be simulated >>> until non-existent completion is especially nuts because >>> you have been told about this dozens of times. >>> >>> What the F is wrong with you? >>> >> >> It seems you don't understand those words. >> >> I don't say that the decider needs to simulate the input to completion, >> but that it needs to be able to actually PROVE that if this exact input >> WAS given to a correct simultor (which won't be itself, since it isn't >> doing the complete simulation) will run for an unbounded number of >> steps. > > No decider is ever allowed to report on anything > besides the actual behavior that its input actually > specifies. Unless you can quote some respectable author your prohibitions are meaningless. > Most people here don't get that because they have no > actual depth of understanding. They can only parrot > the words of textbooks. Do you even understand what the word "allowed" means? -- Mikko