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: Sat, 7 Jun 2025 08:56:06 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 111 Message-ID: <1021gdm$3327l$3@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> <101ua5p$25q66$1@dont-email.me> <101v58j$2c1iv$3@dont-email.me> <1020t4j$2u6h7$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2025 15:56:07 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8b5701e9588c79f836e89c5073f428a2"; logging-data="3246325"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1858CNKIkO2Her0Yu/Zktxv" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:DUgLIwXzRw7IKu1qRVIoJJcaSis= X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250607-2, 6/7/2025), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <1020t4j$2u6h7$1@dont-email.me> On 6/7/2025 3:26 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2025-06-06 16:33:23 +0000, olcott said: > >> On 6/6/2025 3:51 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. If it can be exectuted to its >>> final halt state it is a halting computation, and we know that it >>> can be because it has been. >> >> We cannot simply ignore and > > Be specific: we cannot simply ignore the meaning of "non halting". > >> thus give up on > > Ignoring is not the same as giving up. For example, you ignore > important relevant things but you don't give up. > >> the case where an input calls its own termination analyzer, >> even if it is the historical precedent to give up. > > The requirement for that case are the same as for any other case. > You may need to consider it separately if want to make your partial > decider to handle 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* *Every rebuttal to this changes the words* -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer