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, 31 May 2025 15:40:15 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 79 Message-ID: <101fpff$1eih2$1@dont-email.me> References: <101fnnv$1dq3l$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 31 May 2025 22:40:15 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c9a131a468f55446a50ed4b18f7c4193"; logging-data="1526306"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+obp3nY8RZALVDtPdbDNIz" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:R4C73D/xkus0spX3CFuB1BNu+OU= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250531-4, 5/31/2025), Outbound message On 5/31/2025 3:30 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: > On Sat, 31 May 2025 15:10:39 -0500, olcott wrote: > >> On 5/31/2025 2:44 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>> Flibble's Argument: Execution vs Simulation in SHDs >>> ==================================================== >>> >>> In the context of Simulating Halt Deciders (SHDs), the distinction >>> between execution and simulation is fundamental. >>> >>> Correct: External Simulation ---------------------------- >>> int main() { >>> HHH(DDD); // SHD simulates/analyzes DDD from the outside. >>> } >>> >>> - In this model, DDD is not being executed — it's being passed as data >>> to HHH, which is analyzing it. >>> - Even if DDD() (the function definition) contains a recursive call to >>> HHH(DDD), this is just part of the code being simulated, not something >>> that is actively executing. >>> - Thus, the simulation can detect infinite recursion structurally, >>> without running DDD. >>> >>> Incorrect: Active Execution --------------------------- >>> int main() { >>> DDD(); // Directly executes DDD, which calls HHH(DDD) during >>> runtime. >>> } >>> >>> >> We can't simply reject this as incorrect since it is the basis of every >> rebuttal of my work. >> >> It *is* incorrect to assume that the HHH that DDD calls is supposed to >> report on the behavior of its caller. >> >>> - In this scenario, you’re actually running DDD, not simulating it. >>> - If DDD() calls HHH(DDD) at runtime, you're now mixing execution and >>> analysis in the same layer, violating the stratified model. >>> - This results in self-referential execution that undermines >>> decidability — a category error akin to the original halting paradox. >>> >>> Key Insight ----------- >>> As long as DDD is not executing and is only being simulated by HHH, it >>> doesn’t matter that DDD would call HHH(DDD) — because that call is >>> never actually made. It exists in the simulated model, not in the >>> runtime environment. Thus, structural recursion can be detected safely >>> and treated as non-halting without triggering a paradox. >>> >>> This stratification (meta → base) is what keeps the model coherent. >> >> A PhD computer scientist Eric Hehner has this same view. He explains >> this view as the analyzer and the analyzed are in different programming >> languages where the input cannot directly call its analyzer. >> >> I only very recently discovered that it is 100% impossible to actually >> define *an input* that does the opposite of whatever value its analyzer >> returns. >> >> In every conventional proof of the halting problem it has always been >> that the decider cannot correctly report on the behavior of its caller. >> >> You will find thousands of messages posted in this forum where everyone >> says that I am wrong because HHH does not report on the behavior of the >> direct execution of DDD() (AKA its caller). > > You cannot both execute and simulate DDD as part of the same analysis, if > you do that then you are WRONG. > > /Flibble int main() { DDD(); // calls HHH(DDD) that simulates its own separate } // instance of DDD. The analysis does not begin // until after HHH(DDD) is called. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer