Path: nntp.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic Subject: Re: My reviewers think that halt deciders must report on the behavior of their caller Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2025 08:32:03 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 94 Message-ID: <104gi8j$2uc68$2@dont-email.me> References: <101nq32$99vd$1@dont-email.me> <101o913$db96$2@dont-email.me> <101o9rb$hd6o$1@dont-email.me> <101oa30$db96$4@dont-email.me> <101obb4$hd6o$4@dont-email.me> <101oc24$hlr6$2@dont-email.me> <101ocpc$hd6o$7@dont-email.me> <101od0p$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> <4cb5d16be8d1e6549823f35081050e7dad462da2@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2025 15:32:03 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5b8546c5fedfaaedc96332a808ca8671"; logging-data="3092680"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/VN+Gvs4PhlKkZKtQztxEZ" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:mEmyZRbWs/pJyPX9Yvckcvxdj+E= In-Reply-To: <4cb5d16be8d1e6549823f35081050e7dad462da2@i2pn2.org> X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Content-Language: en-US X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250707-2, 7/7/2025), Outbound message On 7/7/2025 6:19 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 7/6/25 11:12 PM, olcott wrote: >> 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. >> > > Sure it is, there isn't a "law" that prohibits wrong answer, it just > makes it not correct. > Sure in the same way that reporting the square root of a rotten egg is incorrect. > And, since the input to a halt decider is supposed to be a > representation/description (as a term-of-art word) of a Turing Machine, > and the behavior that this input specifies is defined as the behavior of > directly running that machine, That has always been incorrect. > you claim is really that that the ONLY > thing that HHH is ALLOWED to answer about is that direct execution, > which you also are trying to claim it doesn't need to. > > So, you are just showing that you are just a liar and have created a > fantasy world which you are trying to live in full of your own self- > contradictions, but divorced from the actual rules of the world. > You have never even found an actual single mistake. > This is just your manifistions of your insanity, > >> Most people here don't get that because they have no >> actual depth of understanding. They can only parrot >> the words of textbooks. >> > > No, you are just showing that you don't know what you are talking about, > and can just parrot the lies that you made up and have no support for.] > > Better to parrot truth then to be imaginatively telling lies (and your > aren't even being very imaginative any more). Everything that I said is a verified fact. Every rebuttal has been counter-factual at best. That you don't seem to even understand what recursion is proves that you are insufficiently competent. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer