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: Mon, 2 Jun 2025 10:57:53 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 69 Message-ID: <101khm1$3bfvj$9@dont-email.me> References: <101fkr6$1db6f$1@dont-email.me> <101hd2e$21nfj$1@dont-email.me> <101jbrq$31e9g$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2025 17:57:54 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="01672d8ae9aa1e0fec727857b1cb5419"; logging-data="3522547"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/gpgBc/Kn81ASutOg9vmZY" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:KfvZiO7Rt3RP9LlWLU4cpFN31lM= Content-Language: en-US X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250602-4, 6/2/2025), Outbound message In-Reply-To: On 6/2/2025 6:04 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/2/25 1:12 AM, olcott wrote: >> 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* >> >> *Every rebuttal to this changes the words* >> >> > > No, it specifies FINITE recursive simulation, as HHH is defined to be a > DECIDER, that must always  return after finite time. > Unlike most people here I do understand that not possibly reaching a final halt state *is* non-halting behavior. > Your world is just filled with contradictions and lies. > > The problem is your words are just meaningless, as you admit you don't > use there actual meaning as terms-of-art. > > Sorry, but you are just showing how stupid you are. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer