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: Fri, 11 Jul 2025 10:22:32 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 138 Message-ID: <104ra7p$1icss$2@dont-email.me> References: <101nq32$99vd$1@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> <104g10n$2r52v$1@dont-email.me> <104gkqr$2uc68$5@dont-email.me> <104ii8o$3ehok$1@dont-email.me> <104j9hr$3jrpl$4@dont-email.me> <104l8ra$50d2$1@dont-email.me> <104ln4n$7l4q$1@dont-email.me> <104o17v$ppiu$1@dont-email.me> <104oiig$t0u4$5@dont-email.me> <104qidi$1dntf$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2025 17:22:33 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="77a1f53edba794dcd0b3794096040439"; logging-data="1651612"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19pNw2aPha4GT19cv2n3AuG" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:xG3Jo9WkiM2NIKevfON1FJaMCKY= Content-Language: en-US X-Antivirus-Status: Clean In-Reply-To: <104qidi$1dntf$1@dont-email.me> X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250711-6, 7/11/2025), Outbound message On 7/11/2025 3:36 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2025-07-10 14:26:24 +0000, olcott said: > >> On 7/10/2025 4:30 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 2025-07-09 12:25:59 +0000, olcott said: >>> >>>> On 7/9/2025 3:22 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 2025-07-08 14:21:47 +0000, olcott said: >>>>> >>>>>> On 7/8/2025 2:44 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> On 2025-07-07 14:15:54 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 7/7/2025 3:37 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> To people that never had any actual understanding and >>>>>>>> can only parrot textbooks. They need to see this things >>>>>>>> in other textbooks. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> People who can parrot textbooks know better than people who cannot. >>>>>>> That you can't when you should shows that you can't even parrot >>>>>>> textbooks. >>>>>> >>>>>> I just reverse-engineer what the truth actually is. >>>>>> *From the bottom of page 319 has been adapted to this* >>>>>> https://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP_317-320.pdf >>>>>> >>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ >>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.∞ >>>>>>      ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by Ĥ.embedded_H reaches >>>>>>      its simulated final halt state of ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩ >>>>>> >>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>>>      ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by Ĥ.embedded_H cannot possibly >>>>>>      reach its simulated final halt state of ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩ >>>>> >>>>> The above does not make sense. There are one subordinate clause >>>>> and two nmain clauses but they are not linked to a sentence. >>>>> Whithout a sentence nothing is said. >>>> >>>> The reason that I gave you a link to the whole >>>> original proof is so that you could see how it >>>> makes sense. Maybe the original proof doesn't >>>> make sense to you either? >>> >>> I'm not talking about any proof, I'm talking about your words and >>> symbols quored above. What is written in the book does make sense. >>> In particular, clauses are meaningfully linked to sentences. >>> Perhaps the presentation could be clearer but it is intended for >>> students that already know and understand the earlier parts of the >>> book. >>> >>>> Linz tried to make two blocks of code into >>>> English sentences. >>> >>> The "blocks of code" are main clauses. They use abrevations because >>> those >>> are easier to read than a full natural language sentence. There are >>> other >>> clauses so that all clauses together form a sentence. In particuralr, >>> ther >>> is an "and" between them. The sentence is not a truth bearer. Instead it >>> expresses a desire. >>> >>> If you want to say something you should learn to construct meaningful >>> sentences. >> >> That you cannot understand what I say > > A false calim aobut another persion is a sin even when presented > as a subordiante clause. > That you cannot understand that you do not understand what I say is not you understanding what I say. When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.∞ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by Ĥ.embedded_H reaches its simulated final halt state of ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩, and Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by Ĥ.embedded_H cannot possibly reach its simulated final halt state of ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩. The above makes the Linz proof counter-example input decidable. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer