Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC

Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> writes:

Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:

[...]

And the big picture is that this can be done because false is the
correct halting decision for some halting computations.  He has said
this explicitly (as I have posted before) but he has also explained it
in words:
>
| When-so-ever a halt decider correctly determines that its input would
| never halt unless forced to halt by this halt decider this halt
| decider has made a correct not-halting determination.

Hmm.  I don't read that the way you do.  Did I miss something?

It assumes that the input is a non-halting computation ("its input
would never halt") and asserts that, in certain circumstances,
his mythical halt decider correctly determines that the input
is non-halting.

When his mythical halt decider correctly determines that its input
doesn't halt, it has made a correct non-halting determination.
It's just a tautology.

This kind of determination can be made in specific cases (but of
course not in general).  A simple program like `int main(void)
{ while (1); }` is non-halting.  If I run it, it will never halt
unless I force it to halt, e.g. by typing Control-C or pulling the
power plug.

(I'm assuming that "when-so-ever" means the same as "when".)

[...]

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */