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 16:27:07 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 105 Message-ID: <101fs7c$1fan6$1@dont-email.me> References: <101fnnv$1dq3l$1@dont-email.me> <101fpff$1eih2$1@dont-email.me> <7SJ_P.236551$RD41.79662@fx12.ams4> <101fqas$1eih2$2@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 23:27:08 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c9a131a468f55446a50ed4b18f7c4193"; logging-data="1551078"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX184q+t3tmq9MZPP9zjzrEAT" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:O8Yg3jo+F/iwEKzyv+vsN/p5rJc= In-Reply-To: X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250531-4, 5/31/2025), Outbound message Content-Language: en-US X-Antivirus-Status: Clean On 5/31/2025 4:00 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: > On Sat, 31 May 2025 15:54:52 -0500, olcott wrote: > >> On 5/31/2025 3:43 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>> On Sat, 31 May 2025 15:40:15 -0500, olcott wrote: >>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> That is a type violation (category error), i.e. WRONG. Simulation >>> analysis of DDD should involve no DIRECT execution of DDD WHATSOEVER. >>> >>> /Flibble >> >> I know that and you know that yet no one else here knows that. > > Stop lying, you don't know that at all: you are just wrong unless you > accept that what I am saying is correct and you have been wrong until I > told you how you were wrong. > > /Flibble You are much more correct than anyone else here besides me. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer