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

On 5/23/2025 7:26 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

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

On 23/05/2025 19:37, Keith Thompson wrote:

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.

>
You're reading it the way most people would, and in the way I said Sipser
would be interpreting the oft-quoted "Sipser quote".  I don't think you've
missed anything particularly.

 Maybe it makes less sense out of the context it was posted in.  This was
when he was being less obtuse.  The computation in question only halts
because it is halted by the decider on which it is built.  It is a
halting computation, but according to PO it can reported as not halting
because of what would happen if it were not halted by the decider from
which it is derived.
 

In other words you expect that the HHH that DD calls
to report on the behavior of its caller?
How the f-ck can it do that ASSHOLE?
int main()
{
   DD(); // The HHH that DD calls cannot report on
}       // the behavior of its caller
         // that is simply not the way that computation works

Subsequent wordings have all been about hiding this.  Just prior to this
wording was the even more explicit claim that non-halting is correct
because of what "would happen if line 15 were commented out".  It's
always been about what would be the correct decision were the
computation not what it actually is.
 

The input to HHH(DD) SPECIFIES A NON-HALTING
SEQUENCE OF CONFIGURATIONS IN THAT DD SIMULATED
BY HHH CANNOT POSSIBLY STOP RUNNING UNLESS ABORTED.
This is a tautology you damned liar.

I suppose Ben quoted PO saying this, because PO /uses/ it to justify that a
particular /halting/ computation will never halt,

 He may be doing that now, but he used to use this form of words to
justify why non-halting is the correct result for some halting
computations.  Obviously, to keep people talking he has had to scramble
to get away from what he has said in the past without repudiating it.
No crank likes admit they were ever wrong.
 

--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer