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: Thu, 5 Jun 2025 11:20:51 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 89 Message-ID: <101sg53$1kh2e$9@dont-email.me> References: <101nq32$99vd$1@dont-email.me> <101or6b$maj5$1@dont-email.me> <101pq02$ta6v$4@dont-email.me> <15abd00ec5b1e4a13892e85ee6ace9ac10d92c56@i2pn2.org> <101qu8f$15bg8$3@dont-email.me> <0b60c5dc1bb43a603e8071dbf6b7f7f1eb395130@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2025 18:20:52 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7a75ad72c7c9f6fd0ca7001367c21b2a"; logging-data="1721422"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+02mfpbApdERJrRIAx9EiM" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:X9e8uT9E/fR9n/mISgblRyvppBw= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <0b60c5dc1bb43a603e8071dbf6b7f7f1eb395130@i2pn2.org> X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250605-6, 6/5/2025), Outbound message On 6/5/2025 6:03 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/4/25 10:09 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/4/2025 8:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/4/25 11:50 AM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/4/2025 2:04 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 2025-06-03 21:39:46 +0000, olcott said: >>>>> >>>>>> They all say that HHH must report on the behavior of >>>>>> direct execution of DDD() >>>>> >>>>> No, they don't say that. A halting decider (and a partial halting >>>>> decider when it reports) must report whether the direct execution >>>>> of the computation asked about terminates. Unless that computation >>>>> happens to be DDD() it must report about another behaviour instead >>>>> of DDD(). >>>>> >>>>>> yet never bother to notice that the directly executed DDD() is >>>>>> the caller of HHH(DDD). >>>>> >>>>> To say that nobody has noticed that is a lie. Perhaps they have not >>>>> mentioned what is irrelevant to whatever they said. In particular, >>>>> whether DDD() calls HHH(DDD) is irrelevant to the requirement that >>>>> a halting decider must report about a direct exection of the >>>>> computation the input specifies. >>>>> >>>> >>>> *People have ignored this for 90 years* >>>> *People have ignored this for 90 years* >>>> *People have ignored this for 90 years* >>>> >>>> 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: >>> >>> So? >>> >>> It *IS* a fact that to be correct, it needs to answer about the >>> direct executiom of the program that input represents. >>> >>> That is DEFINITION. >>> >> >> Likewise with the definition of Russell's Paradox >> until ZFC showed that this definition is complete >> nonsense. >> > > No, Russell's Paradox showed a fundamental error in "Naive" Set Theory. > ZFC did nothing with Russell's Paradox, except to define a system that > can't support it, but still was able to handle a large portion of the > problems that the original theory was trying to be used on. > ZFC ruled that those aspects of naive set theory that allowed Russell's Paradox to exist were incoherent. int main() { DDD(); // The HHH(DDD) that this DDD calls cannot see its caller } Likewise PO has ruled that the counter-example input to the halting problem cannot actually do the opposite of whatever value that its decider returns. The above DDD *IS NOT AN INPUT* to the HHH(DDD) that it calls. > Until you can show a similar problem with the definitions from > computation theory, you don't have something to stand on. > > The fact that some things turn out to be not-computable is not such a > problem, in fact after it was discovered that this problem was non- > computable, mathematics figured out that there had to be uncomputable > problems by a simple counting argument. > > If you think non-computable functions ARE a problem, and you want to > define some alternate theory of computations, go ahead. You then have > teh second half of what ZFC did, show that your system solves the > problems that the original theory was being used on. > > Since, it is clear you don't understand the purpose that Computation > Theory was developed for (Hint, it isn't about programs on modern > digital computers, as it predates their existance), this will be hard > for you. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer