Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Mikko Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Every HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2025 08:54:57 +0300 Organization: - Lines: 92 Message-ID: <10238jh$3m5et$1@dont-email.me> References: <101fkr6$1db6f$1@dont-email.me> <101hd2e$21nfj$1@dont-email.me> <101jbrq$31e9g$1@dont-email.me> <101ot6n$mnm6$1@dont-email.me> <101pn1n$smpc$2@dont-email.me> <101rhoj$1dp11$1@dont-email.me> <101sf1a$1kh2e$5@dont-email.me> <101u73h$252sq$1@dont-email.me> <101v7mu$2crgr$3@dont-email.me> <1020sn5$2u3nr$1@dont-email.me> <1021g9h$3327l$2@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2025 07:54:58 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="926e0a0316ccca2b43c38f3e12481929"; logging-data="3872221"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18+GFB29cZn0eea9o7liKVa" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:vEWriiVzjag6LUZZxlWb7Qlohf0= On 2025-06-07 13:53:53 +0000, olcott said: > On 6/7/2025 3:19 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2025-06-06 17:15:10 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> On 6/6/2025 2:58 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2025-06-05 16:01:46 +0000, olcott said: >>>> >>>>> On 6/5/2025 2:42 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 2025-06-04 15:00:07 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 6/4/2025 2:39 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2025-06-02 05:12:26 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 6/1/2025 6:20 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2025-05-31 19:21:10 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 5/31/2025 2:11 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott is doing this: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> int main() >>>>>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>>>> DDD(); // DDD calls HHH >>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> This is incorrect as it is a category (type) error in the form of >>>>>>>>>>>> conflation of the EXECUTION of DDD with the SIMULATION of DDD: to >>>>>>>>>>>> completely and correctly simulate/analyse DDD there must be no execution >>>>>>>>>>>> of DDD prior to the simulation of DDD. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott should be doing this: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> int main() >>>>>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>>>> HHH(DDD); >>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I would have left it there except that many dozens of >>>>>>>>>>> reviewers have pointed out that they believe that HHH >>>>>>>>>>> is supposed to report on the behavior of its caller. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> A halt decider is required to report on the computation it is asked >>>>>>>>>> about. There is no requirement that a halt decider knows or can find >>>>>>>>>> out whether it is called by the program about which is required to >>>>>>>>>> report. Consequently, whether the computaton asked about calls the >>>>>>>>>> decider is irrelevant. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> void DDD() >>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD); >>>>>>>>>    return; >>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The *input* to simulating termination analyzer HHH(DDD) >>>>>>>>> specifies recursive simulation that can never reach its >>>>>>>>> *simulated "return" instruction final halt state* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If it does then the "input" is not DDD, which specifies a halting >>>>>>>> behaviour if HHH is a decider. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You can say these things only by making >>>>>>> sure to ignore the verified facts. >>>>>> >>>>>> We can ignore irrelevant facts. But if you ignore relevant requirements >>>>>> you can't prove that your soliution is correct. >>>>> >>>>> As long as DDD emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach >>>>> its own "return" instruction final halt state then >>>>> DDD is non halting even if it is never simulated. >>>> >>>> That is not what "non-halting" means. Anything said about "DDD emulated >>>> by HHH" is irrelevant. Wikipedia says: "In computability theory, the >>>> halting problem is the problem of determining, from a description of an >>>> arbitrary computer program and an input, whether the program will finish >>>> running, or continue to run forever." Your HHH(DDD) does not do that. >>> >>> >>>      If *simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its* >>>      *input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D* >>>      *would never stop running unless aborted* then >> >> That is not a definition of the meaning of halting. That is a diagnostic >> cirterion for a conclusion not shown in the partial quote above. SIpser >> does not prove the validity of the criterion. > > The above criterion measure is a self-evident truth. So you don't disagree. -- Mikko