Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: My reviewers think that halt deciders must report on the behavior of their caller Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2025 10:46:56 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 116 Message-ID: <101se5g$1kh2e$1@dont-email.me> References: <101nq32$99vd$1@dont-email.me> <101or6b$maj5$1@dont-email.me> <101pq02$ta6v$4@dont-email.me> <15abd00ec5b1e4a13892e85ee6ace9ac10d92c56@i2pn2.org> <101qu8f$15bg8$3@dont-email.me> <101qugc$15d1h$3@dont-email.me> <101r0au$15bg8$7@dont-email.me> <101r10f$15d1h$6@dont-email.me> <101r355$1adut$2@dont-email.me> <101r3kd$15d1h$8@dont-email.me> <101r6mb$1adut$5@dont-email.me> <101rfci$1cvpu$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2025 17:46:57 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7a75ad72c7c9f6fd0ca7001367c21b2a"; logging-data="1721422"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/PbBepwN2W6QV1RgPhu/l+" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:I9esMefZgX3Xxc/ndVdh9rf1QzM= Content-Language: en-US X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250605-6, 6/5/2025), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean In-Reply-To: <101rfci$1cvpu$1@dont-email.me> On 6/5/2025 2:01 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: > Op 05.jun.2025 om 06:33 schreef olcott: >> On 6/4/2025 10:41 PM, dbush wrote: >>> On 6/4/2025 11:32 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/4/2025 9:56 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>> On 6/4/2025 10:44 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/4/2025 9:13 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/4/2025 10:09 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/4/2025 8:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/4/25 11:50 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/4/2025 2:04 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-06-03 21:39:46 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> They all say that HHH must report on the behavior of >>>>>>>>>>>> direct execution of DDD() >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No, they don't say that. A halting decider (and a partial >>>>>>>>>>> halting >>>>>>>>>>> decider when it reports) must report whether the direct >>>>>>>>>>> execution >>>>>>>>>>> of the computation asked about terminates. Unless that >>>>>>>>>>> computation >>>>>>>>>>> happens to be DDD() it must report about another behaviour >>>>>>>>>>> instead >>>>>>>>>>> of DDD(). >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> yet never bother to notice that the directly executed DDD() is >>>>>>>>>>>> the caller of HHH(DDD). >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> To say that nobody has noticed that is a lie. Perhaps they >>>>>>>>>>> have not >>>>>>>>>>> mentioned what is irrelevant to whatever they said. In >>>>>>>>>>> particular, >>>>>>>>>>> whether DDD() calls HHH(DDD) is irrelevant to the requirement >>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>> a halting decider must report about a direct exection of the >>>>>>>>>>> computation the input specifies. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *People have ignored this for 90 years* >>>>>>>>>> *People have ignored this for 90 years* >>>>>>>>>> *People have ignored this for 90 years* >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The only possible way that HHH can report on the >>>>>>>>>> direct execution of DDD() is for HHH to report on >>>>>>>>>> the behavior of its caller: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It *IS* a fact that to be correct, it needs to answer about the >>>>>>>>> direct executiom of the program that input represents. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That is DEFINITION. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Likewise with the definition of Russell's Paradox >>>>>>>> until ZFC showed that this definition is complete >>>>>>>> nonsense. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But unlike Russel's Paradox, which showed a contradiction in the >>>>>>> axioms of naive set theory, there is no contradiction in the >>>>>>> axioms of computation theory.  It follows from those axioms that >>>>>>> no H exists that performs the below mapping, as you have >>>>>>> *explicitly* agreed. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> int main() >>>>>> { >>>>>>    DDD(); // comp theory does not allow HHH to >>>>>> }        // report on the behavior of its caller. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> int main() >>>>> { >>>>>     DDD();     // this >>>>>     HHH(DDD);  // is not the caller of this: this >>>>> is }              // asking what the above will do >>>> >>>> That is just not the way that computation actually works. >>> >>> Sure it is.  We don't care how the mapping is generated, only that it >>> is generated. >>> >> >> There is not enough information in the input to >> know how the caller works. > > Counterfactual. The input is a pointer to the start of a function. Prove it. > The > code of that function has addresses to other functions used in the > program, including the code that aborts and halts. > All information is there. But the programmer of HHH decided to make HHH > such that it does not see all the information. It is a choice to analyse > only the code of DDD itself. A wrong choice. It should also analyse the > code of the functions called by DDD. Including the conditional branch > instructions within the functions called by DDD. > >> >> Also there is not enough information in any integer >> to predict who the president will be. >> >> char* WhatIsTheNameOfThePresidentIn2030(int x); > > Irrelevant, because the pointer given to HHH is enough to find all > information, which is proven by the fact that world-class simulator give > the correct result when given exactly the same pointer as input. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer