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, 14 Jul 2025 08:25:30 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 110 Message-ID: <10530ga$3dptv$4@dont-email.me> References: <101nq32$99vd$1@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> <104gi8j$2uc68$2@dont-email.me> <152859a4a4ef31aa45580e873eb6970c34b97ef9@i2pn2.org> <104hmb5$35gkb$1@dont-email.me> <104i15g$36mma$2@dont-email.me> <104jcqn$3jrpl$10@dont-email.me> <104lb03$13ioh$2@dont-email.me> <104lp8o$7l4q$7@dont-email.me> <104o662$18h8g$1@dont-email.me> <104oj2v$t0u4$7@dont-email.me> <104qjcg$1c0m7$1@dont-email.me> <104ruag$1ml84$3@dont-email.me> <104t5nk$1frch$2@dont-email.me> <104tuh6$264oq$9@dont-email.me> <104vij5$1jfin$2@dont-email.me> <1050juk$2qkok$6@dont-email.me> <1052i2m$1pbs1$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2025 15:25:31 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e10498e6bc9f284a7eed933d9123bd8c"; logging-data="3598271"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+Rjv54r9Etrk/B+B4K4I8C" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:ntxKgdSW8XDOIPdNCqv8uPf31BE= In-Reply-To: <1052i2m$1pbs1$1@dont-email.me> X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250714-2, 7/14/2025), Outbound message Content-Language: en-US X-Antivirus-Status: Clean On 7/14/2025 4:19 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: > Op 13.jul.2025 om 17:38 schreef olcott: >> On 7/13/2025 1:09 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>> Op 12.jul.2025 om 17:21 schreef olcott: >>>> On 7/12/2025 3:17 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>> Op 11.jul.2025 om 23:05 schreef olcott: >>>>>> On 7/11/2025 3:52 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>> Op 10.jul.2025 om 16:35 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>> On 7/10/2025 5:54 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>> Op 09.jul.2025 om 15:02 schreef olcott:> >>>>>>>>>> All Turing machine deciders only compute the mapping >>>>>>>>>> from their actual inputs. This entails that they never >>>>>>>>>> compute any mapping from non-inputs. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> At least one thing you understand. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *From the bottom of page 319 has been adapted to this* >>>>>>>> https://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP_317-320.pdf >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *The Linz proof does not understand this* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ >>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.∞ >>>>>>>>    *if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts, and* >>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>>>>>    *if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The evidence is that the input includes the code to abort and >>>>>>>>>>> halt, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> abort and stop running >>>>>>>>>> *IS NOT THE SAME THING AS* >>>>>>>>>> abort and halt >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Another claim without evidence. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *It is common knowledge in the theory of computation* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Another claim without evidence. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *Your lack of knowledge of computer science is not a rebuttal* >>>>>> >>>>>> Look at the definition of a Turing Machine (e.g., the one here). >>>>>> The machine has states. Each state can be final or non-final. If >>>>>> the machine's state is non-final, in the next step the machine >>>>>> "does" something, namely, it can write something on the tape, move >>>>>> its head, and/or change its state to a different state. This is >>>>>> how the machine makes a progress. >>>>> >>>>> So, aborting the simulation when the machine has not yet reached >>>>> its final state, is a violation of the Turing Machine. >>>>> >>>> >>>> void DDD() >>>> { >>>>    HHH(DDD); >>>>    return; >>>> } >>>> >>>> So you don't understand that DDD simulated by >>>> pure simulator HHH keeps repeating its first >>>> line forever? >>> >>> Irrelevant, because that is not what HHH does. >> >> void DDD() >> { >>    HHH(DDD); >>    return; >> } >> >> I stipulated this HHH a pure simulator temporarily >> overriding and superseding everything else that I ever >> said about HHH. > > You can stipulate that, but is irrelevant for the HHH you published in > Halt7.c. *That* HHH is not a pure simulator. The fact that a pure > simulator fails is no proof for the correctness of the non-pure simulator. > Dreaming of other simulators with other behaviour does not change the > factual behaviour of the HHH we are discussing. > void RRR() { SSS(DDD); return; } When RRR is simulated by pure simulator SSS RRR simulated by SSS never reaches its own "return" statement. When we adapt SSS so that it only simulates N instructions of RRR then no RRR ever reaches its own "return" statement. This same thing goes for DDD simulated by HHH. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer