Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Mikko Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: The input to HHH(DDD) specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations +++ Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2025 12:32:39 +0300 Organization: - Lines: 127 Message-ID: <102m3vn$quai$1@dont-email.me> References: <1025i6j$afk6$1@dont-email.me> <1025j6l$4nm5$1@dont-email.me> <1025jn5$aqju$1@dont-email.me> <1025kkk$4nm5$2@dont-email.me> <1025l2e$aqju$3@dont-email.me> <1025l7l$4nm5$3@dont-email.me> <1025n51$b964$2@dont-email.me> <1026d6e$g0hl$2@dont-email.me> <1026rvc$j3rp$3@dont-email.me> <1027vah$r7bj$5@dont-email.me> <10295kr$17jfi$1@dont-email.me> <1029jnd$1ah2f$3@dont-email.me> <102be83$1s967$1@dont-email.me> <102c2bu$20jl4$4@dont-email.me> <102h0gt$3db1e$1@dont-email.me> <102jvnl$793t$6@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2025 11:32:40 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1939c4df549281b075671edfe39ddeb2"; logging-data="883026"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19hJH8eO6Vb/BezYaL/vK99" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:AqpCgqeWot1QT7HMvDMMbQAS9oI= On 2025-06-14 14:07:49 +0000, olcott said: > On 6/13/2025 6:02 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2025-06-11 14:03:41 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> On 6/11/2025 3:20 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2025-06-10 15:41:33 +0000, olcott said: >>>> >>>>> On 6/10/2025 6:41 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 2025-06-10 00:47:12 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 6/9/2025 7:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/9/25 10:43 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2025 5:31 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Op 09.jun.2025 om 06:15 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/8/2025 10:42 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/8/2025 11:39 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/8/2025 10:32 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/8/2025 11:16 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/8/2025 10:08 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/8/2025 10:50 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> void DDD() >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD); >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    return; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The *input* to simulating termination analyzer HHH(DDD) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No it's not, as halt deciders / termination analyzers work with algorithms, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is stupidly counter-factual. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That you think that shows that >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> My understanding is deeper than yours. >>>>>>>>>>>>> No decider ever takes any algorithm as its input. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> But they take a description/specification of an algorithm, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> There you go. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> which is what is meant in this context. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It turns out that this detail makes a big difference. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> And because your HHH does not work with the description/ specification >>>>>>>>>>>> of an algorithm, by your own admission, you're not working on the >>>>>>>>>>>> halting problem. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> HHH(DDD) takes a finite string of x86 instructions >>>>>>>>>>> that specify that HHH simulates itself simulating DDD. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And HHH fails to see the specification of the x86 instructions. It >>>>>>>>>> aborts before it can see how the program ends. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This is merely a lack of sufficient technical competence >>>>>>>>> on your part. It is a verified fact that unless the outer >>>>>>>>> HHH aborts its simulation of DDD that DDD simulated by HHH >>>>>>>>> the directly executed DDD() and the directly executed HHH() >>>>>>>>> would never stop running. That you cannot directly see this >>>>>>>>> is merely your own lack of sufficient technical competence. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And it is a verified fact that you just ignore that if HHH does in fact >>>>>>>> abort its simulation of DDD and return 0, then the behavior of the >>>>>>>> input, PER THE ACTUAL DEFINITIONS, is to Halt, and thus HHH is just >>>>>>>> incorrect. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> void DDD() >>>>>>> { >>>>>>>    HHH(DDD); >>>>>>>    return; >>>>>>> } >>>>>>> >>>>>>> How the f-ck does DDD correctly simulated by HHH >>>>>>> reach its own "return" statement final halt state? >>>>>> >>>>>> If HHH is not a decider the question is not interesting. >>>>> >>>>> I switched to the term: "termination analyzer" because halt deciders >>>>> have the impossible task of being all knowing. >>>> >>>> The termination problem is in certain sense harder than the halting >>>> problem. >>> >>> Not at all >> >> That's in another sense in which nothing is harder than impossible. >> >>> void DDD() >>> { >>>    HHH(DDD); >>>    return; >>> } >>> >>> If HHH only determines non-halting correctly for the >>> above input and gets the wrong answer on everything >>> else then HHH *is* a correct termination analyzer. >> >> It is not a correct termination analyzer if if gives the wrong answer. > > *Key verified facts such that disagreement is inherently incorrect* > > (a) HHH(DDD) does not correctly report on the behavior of its caller. True. > (b) Within the theory of computation HHH is not allowed to report > on the behavior of its caller. False. The theory of computation does not prohibit anything. More generally, mathematical and scientific theories do not prohibit. > (c) HHH(DDD) does correctly report on the behavior that its > input specifies. False. The input specifies the behavior that is observed when DDD and a main that calls DDD are complided and linked with your HHH and with whatever HHH needs, and then executed. That behaviour is known to halt. -- Mikko