Path: nntp.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Mikko Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: My reviewers think that halt deciders must report on the behavior of their caller Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2025 11:36:02 +0300 Organization: - Lines: 117 Message-ID: <104qidi$1dntf$1@dont-email.me> References: <101nq32$99vd$1@dont-email.me> <101od0p$i3m6$2@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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2025 10:36:03 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7ff485180650b9bc8c2ec509aeaef70e"; logging-data="1499055"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19fA+uthyf4WMLCNHZ16YtN" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:TmsOszPiTGGuBjvYUJqhdCXPVuc= 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. -- Mikko