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

On 5/23/25 11:29 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/23/2025 9:41 PM, Mike Terry wrote:

On 24/05/2025 01:26, 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.

>
"The computation in question only halts because it is halted by the decider on which it is built."
>
That is presumably you speaking in PO's voice, but my first reading was as you saying it!
>
Of course, the computation in question [DDD(DDD)] is at no point "halted" by anything, and halts quite happily all on by itself!

 That is not true and you may not know it.
and you didn't even say it correctly.
DDD() takes no params.
 int main()
{
   DDD(); // cannot possibly stop running unless
}        // HHH(DDD) aborts its simulation
 

>
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.

>
Yes, current posters are right on top of that, calling it out as "changing the input".  I'm not sure PO realises he is changing the input, and if he does, whether he understands /why/ that is completely out of order.

 <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
     If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
     input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
     *would never stop running unless aborted* then
 Doesn't actually change the input.
Is the term "hypothetical" OVER-YOUR-HEAD?
 D correctly reports on what the behavior would be if a
*HYPOTHETICAL H* never aborted the simulation of its input.
 THAT IS THE BEHAVIOR THAT THIS INPUT SPECIFIES.
 

PO has recently started talking about what happens when we hypothetically "change the HHH/DDD input /pair/ " so that makes me think he does now explicitly realise that's what's going on, but not why it's a mistake.
>

 Everyone here including you believes that HHH
is not allowed to report on the actual behavior
that its input actually specifies and instead
MUST report on the behavior of its caller.

But since they are one and the same, that is a distinction that doesn't matter.
Your problem is that you just don't know what the words you are using actually mean as terms-of-art in the field you are talking about, and clearly don't care about their meaning as you deliberately and reckless just disregard the truth of them.

 int main()
{
   DDD();  // HHH cannot report on the behavior of its caller.
}
 

As ever, pointing it out to PO, however explicitly and clearly, has no effect on what PO believes.
>
>
Mike.
>