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

Liste des GroupesRevenir à theory 
Sujet : Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theory
Date : 24. May 2025, 17:38:58
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <100ssn2$q5nm$2@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 5/24/2025 11:24 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 11:13:12 -0500, olcott wrote:
 
On 5/24/2025 10:12 AM, dbush wrote:
On 5/24/2025 11:04 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/23/2025 8:09 PM, dbush wrote:
On 5/23/2025 9:07 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/23/2025 7:57 PM, dbush wrote:
On 5/23/2025 8:54 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/23/2025 7:44 PM, dbush wrote:
On 5/23/2025 8:08 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
I suppose Ben quoted PO saying this, because PO /uses/ it to
justify that a particular /halting/ computation will never halt,
PO's HHH simulates DDD (which halts) but before DDD halts it
spots a pattern in the simulation, and announces non-halting.
"Eh?" I hear you say! PO claims HHH has "correctly determined
that DDD would never halt" and so is correct to decide non-
halting.  His "proof" that it is right to decide non-halting is
his "when-so- ever.." quote, which broadly matches the Sipser
quote.
>
So the problem is not so much the "when-so-ever.." words
themselves [or the words of Sipser's quote], but understanding
how PO is so thoroughly misinterpreting/misapplying them.  How
can PO believe HHH has "correctly determined the DDD will never
halt" when DDD demonstrably halts?
>
PO is working in a different model than the rest of us, though he
doesn't seem to understand that.
>
To him, when function H is deciding on something, the
implementation of H is allowed to vary.  This results in
functions that call H to vary as a result.  To him, "DDD" is the
same computation *regardless of the implementation of HHH*, in
cases where HHH is simulating DDD.
>
This is essentially the mapping he's operating with:
>
-----------------
For a function X with input Y and a function H which simulates X:
POH(H,X,Y)==1 if and only if there exists an implementation of H
that can simulate X(Y) to completion POH(H,X,Y)==0 if and only if
there does not exist an implementation of H that can simulate
X(Y) to completion ----------------
>
And a "decider" in his case maps the following subset:
>
----------------
Hx is a PO-halt decider if and only if Hx(X,Y) == POH(Hx,X,Y)
----------------
>
So given his rules, HHH1(DDD) is deciding on a algorithm while
HHH(DDD) is deciding on a C function whose subfunctions vary.
>
This of course has nothing to do with the halting problem but he
doesn't get this.  After having spent 22 years on this, he'll
come up with any crazy justification to avoid admitting to
himself that he misunderstood the problem all this time.  He once
said (and I don't recall the exact wording) that "the directly
executed D doesn't halt even though it appears to".
>
The problem is that people here are too stupid to notice that HHH
cannot report on the behavior of its caller.
>
int min()
{
    DD(); // HHH cannot report on the behavior of its caller.
}
>
>
What about this?
>
>
If you can't stay exactly on topic I am going to ignore everything
that you say.
>
HHH cannot report on the behavior of its caller AKA the direct
execution of DD().
>
>
>
In other words, you again agree with Linz and others that no H exists
that can perform the following mapping:
>
>
Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of instructions)
X described as <X> with input Y:
>
A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes the
following mapping:
>
(<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly
(<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed
directly
>
>
int main()
{
    DD(); // The HHH called by DD cannot report on the behavior
}       // of its caller. Is this OVER-YOUR-HEAD ?
>
>
>
Which means that no HHH exists that meets the below requirements, as
Linz and others proved and as you have *explicitly* agreed is correct:
>
>
You are a damned liar when you say that I said that HHH must report on
the behavior of its caller.
>
No HHH can report on the behavior of its caller for the same reason that
no function can report on the value of the square-root of a dead cat.
 Analysis: Olcott’s SHD vs Classical Halting Problem (Thread on 2025-05-24)
=========================================================================
 Overview:
---------
This thread features a debate between Peter Olcott and dbush over the
validity and interpretation of Olcott’s SHD (Simulating Halt Decider). The
discussion parallels Flibble’s ideas about semantic stratification and
simulation-based detection of infinite behavior.
 Core Disagreement:
------------------
Classical Model:
- The Halting Problem asks if a universal decider H can determine whether
any program P(x) halts when executed directly.
 Olcott’s SHD View:
- HHH simulates P(x) and detects infinite behavior.
- If infinite recursion is observed during simulation, it reports “non-
halting.”
- HHH cannot determine the behavior of its caller (e.g., DD()).
 Philosophical Analysis:
-----------------------
1. Semantic Stratification:
- Olcott: A decider cannot report on its caller. This enforces a semantic
barrier (like Flibble’s model).
- Classical theory treats the program as a fixed object, regardless of how
or where it is called.
 2. Simulation-Based Detection:
- Olcott’s SHD works by observing simulation patterns.
- Like Flibble, Olcott allows early detection of infinite behavior without
full execution.
- This results in a partial decider — useful but not universal.
 3. Context Misunderstanding:
- Olcott sees DD() calling HHH and assumes HHH must reason about DD’s
outer frame.
- Classical theory ignores runtime context: it analyzes the semantics of
the program as a whole.
 Meta-Level Behavior:
--------------------
Olcott:
- Asserts that self-reference leads to non-determinism or ill-formed
questions.
- Treats his SHD as correct for many real-world inputs.
- Undermines his position with poor rhetoric and personal insults.
 dbush:
- Correctly applies classical theory.
- Dismisses Olcott's model as a misunderstanding without acknowledging
alternative interpretations.
 Comparison to Flibble’s Model:
------------------------------
| Feature                    | Olcott's SHD             | Flibble's Typed
SHD         |
|---------------------------|--------------------------|-----------------------------|
| Simulation-based?         | ✅ Yes                   | ✅
Yes                      |
| Infinite detection?       | ✅ Runtime-based         | ✅ Structural-
based         |
| Caller access?            | ❌ No                    | ❌ No (via
compiler restriction) |
| Self-reference blocked?   | 🟡 By convention         | ✅ By type
design           |
| Semantic firewall?        | 🟡 Weak                  | ✅
Strong                   |
 Conclusion:
-----------
Olcott is not incorrect in claiming that SHDs can detect certain forms of
non-halting behavior. However, his failure to delineate model boundaries
leads to confusion. His SHD is a partial model — valid in practical
settings but not a refutation of the Halting Problem.
 
*THIS IS THE ENTIRE SPECIFICATION*
<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
     H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
     specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
Refutes every conventional halting problem proof.
Ignores useless nonsense such as the Busy-Beaver
that has no practical value and quickly consumes
much more memory than there are atoms in the universe.

dbush correctly defends classical theory but could better acknowledge that
Olcott is speaking from a semantically different framework.
 This thread underscores the need to explicitly state the **computational
model** being used — classical, simulation-based, or type-stratified —
before debating correctness or applicability.
Whenever the classical model required a termination analyzer
to report on the behavior of its own caller so that it could
report on the behavior of the direct execution of its input
this has always been moronically stupid.
int main()
{
   DD(); // the HHH that DD calls cannot report on the behavior
}       // of its caller. That is just not he way that
         // computation works.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Date Sujet#  Auteur
21 May 25 * Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion334Richard Damon
21 May 25 +* Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion2Richard Heathfield
21 May 25 i`- Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion1Richard Damon
21 May 25 `* Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC331olcott
21 May 25  +* Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC329Richard Heathfield
21 May 25  i`* Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC328olcott
21 May 25  i +* Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC320Richard Heathfield
21 May 25  i i`* Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC319olcott
21 May 25  i i `* Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC318Richard Heathfield
21 May 25  i i  `* Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC317olcott
21 May 25  i i   `* Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC316Richard Heathfield
21 May 25  i i    +* Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC2Keith Thompson
21 May 25  i i    i`- Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC1Richard Heathfield
21 May 25  i i    +* Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC311olcott
21 May 25  i i    i`* Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC310Richard Heathfield
21 May 25  i i    i `* Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC309olcott
21 May 25  i i    i  `* Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC308Richard Heathfield
21 May 25  i i    i   `* Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC307olcott
21 May 25  i i    i    `* Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC306Richard Heathfield
21 May 25  i i    i     `* Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC305olcott
22 May 25  i i    i      `* Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC304Richard Heathfield
22 May 25  i i    i       `* Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC303olcott
22 May 25  i i    i        +* Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC254Richard Heathfield
22 May 25  i i    i        i`* Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC253Keith Thompson
22 May 25  i i    i        i +* Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC251Richard Heathfield
23 May 25  i i    i        i i`* Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC250Mike Terry
23 May 25  i i    i        i i +* How do computations actually work?81olcott
23 May 25  i i    i        i i i+* Re: How do computations actually work?19wij
23 May 25  i i    i        i i ii+* Re: How do computations actually work?17olcott
23 May 25  i i    i        i i iii`* Re: How do computations actually work?16Mikko
23 May 25  i i    i        i i iii `* Re: How do computations actually work?15olcott
23 May 25  i i    i        i i iii  +* Re: How do computations actually work?6Richard Damon
23 May 25  i i    i        i i iii  i`* Re: How do computations actually work?5olcott
23 May 25  i i    i        i i iii  i +* Re: How do computations actually work?3Fred. Zwarts
23 May 25  i i    i        i i iii  i i`* Re: How do computations actually work?2olcott
23 May 25  i i    i        i i iii  i i `- Re: How do computations actually work?1Fred. Zwarts
23 May 25  i i    i        i i iii  i `- Re: How do computations actually work?1Richard Damon
24 May 25  i i    i        i i iii  `* Re: How do computations actually work?8Mikko
24 May 25  i i    i        i i iii   `* Re: How do computations actually work?7olcott
24 May 25  i i    i        i i iii    +* Re: How do computations actually work?4dbush
24 May 25  i i    i        i i iii    i`* Re: How do computations actually work?3olcott
24 May 25  i i    i        i i iii    i +- Re: How do computations actually work?1dbush
24 May 25  i i    i        i i iii    i `- Re: How do computations actually work?1Richard Damon
24 May 25  i i    i        i i iii    +- Re: How do computations actually work?1Richard Damon
25 May 25  i i    i        i i iii    `- Re: How do computations actually work?1Mikko
23 May 25  i i    i        i i ii`- Re: How do computations actually work?1Mikko
23 May 25  i i    i        i i i+* Re: How do computations actually work?39Mikko
23 May 25  i i    i        i i ii`* Re: How do computations actually work?38olcott
23 May 25  i i    i        i i ii +- Re: How do computations actually work?1Richard Damon
24 May 25  i i    i        i i ii `* Re: How do computations actually work?36Mikko
24 May 25  i i    i        i i ii  `* Re: How do computations actually work?35olcott
24 May 25  i i    i        i i ii   +- Re: How do computations actually work?1Richard Damon
25 May 25  i i    i        i i ii   `* Re: How do computations actually work?33Mikko
25 May 25  i i    i        i i ii    `* Re: How do computations actually work?32olcott
25 May 25  i i    i        i i ii     +* Re: How do computations actually work?19Fred. Zwarts
26 May 25  i i    i        i i ii     i`* Re: How do computations actually work?18olcott
27 May 25  i i    i        i i ii     i `* Re: How do computations actually work?17Mikko
27 May 25  i i    i        i i ii     i  `* Re: How do computations actually work?16olcott
28 May 25  i i    i        i i ii     i   `* Re: How do computations actually work?15Mikko
28 May 25  i i    i        i i ii     i    `* Re: How do computations actually work?14olcott
28 May 25  i i    i        i i ii     i     +* Re: How do computations actually work?9Fred. Zwarts
28 May 25  i i    i        i i ii     i     i`* Re: How do computations actually work?8olcott
29 May 25  i i    i        i i ii     i     i +- Re: How do computations actually work?1Richard Damon
29 May 25  i i    i        i i ii     i     i `* Re: How do computations actually work?6Fred. Zwarts
29 May 25  i i    i        i i ii     i     i  `* Re: How do computations actually work?5Richard Heathfield
30 May 25  i i    i        i i ii     i     i   `* Re: How do computations actually work?4Mikko
30 May 25  i i    i        i i ii     i     i    `* Re: How do computations actually work?3Richard Heathfield
30 May 25  i i    i        i i ii     i     i     `* Re: How do computations actually work?2olcott
31 May 25  i i    i        i i ii     i     i      `- Re: How do computations actually work?1Fred. Zwarts
29 May 25  i i    i        i i ii     i     +* Re: How do computations actually work?3Mikko
29 May 25  i i    i        i i ii     i     i`* Re: How do computations actually work?2Richard Heathfield
30 May 25  i i    i        i i ii     i     i `- Re: How do computations actually work?1Mikko
29 May 25  i i    i        i i ii     i     `- Re: How do computations actually work?1Richard Damon
26 May 25  i i    i        i i ii     `* Re: How do computations actually work?12Mikko
26 May 25  i i    i        i i ii      `* Re: How do computations actually work?11olcott
26 May 25  i i    i        i i ii       +* Re: How do computations actually work?9Fred. Zwarts
26 May 25  i i    i        i i ii       i`* Re: How do computations actually work?8olcott
26 May 25  i i    i        i i ii       i +* Re: How do computations actually work?2Fred. Zwarts
26 May 25  i i    i        i i ii       i i`- Re: How do computations actually work?1olcott
26 May 25  i i    i        i i ii       i +- Re: How do computations actually work?1Richard Damon
27 May 25  i i    i        i i ii       i `* Re: How do computations actually work?4Mikko
27 May 25  i i    i        i i ii       i  `* Re: How do computations actually work?3olcott
28 May 25  i i    i        i i ii       i   +- Re: How do computations actually work?1Richard Damon
28 May 25  i i    i        i i ii       i   `- Re: How do computations actually work?1Mikko
26 May 25  i i    i        i i ii       `- Re: How do computations actually work?1Richard Damon
23 May 25  i i    i        i i i+- Re: How do computations actually work?1Richard Damon
24 May 25  i i    i        i i i`* Re: How do computations actually work?21Mikko
24 May 25  i i    i        i i i `* Re: How do computations actually work?20olcott
24 May 25  i i    i        i i i  +- Re: How do computations actually work?1Richard Damon
25 May 25  i i    i        i i i  `* Re: How do computations actually work?18Mikko
25 May 25  i i    i        i i i   +* Re: How do computations actually work?4Richard Heathfield
25 May 25  i i    i        i i i   i`* Re: How do computations actually work?3Richard Damon
25 May 25  i i    i        i i i   i `* Re: How do computations actually work?2Richard Heathfield
25 May 25  i i    i        i i i   i  `- Re: How do computations actually work?1Richard Damon
25 May 25  i i    i        i i i   `* Re: How do computations actually work?13olcott
26 May 25  i i    i        i i i    `* Re: How do computations actually work?12Mikko
26 May 25  i i    i        i i i     `* Re: How do computations actually work?11olcott
27 May 25  i i    i        i i i      `* Re: How do computations actually work?10Mikko
27 May 25  i i    i        i i i       `* Re: How do computations actually work?9olcott
28 May 25  i i    i        i i i        +- Re: How do computations actually work?1Richard Damon
28 May 25  i i    i        i i i        `* Re: How do computations actually work?7Mikko
23 May 25  i i    i        i i +- Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC1Richard Heathfield
23 May 25  i i    i        i i +* Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC8olcott
23 May 25  i i    i        i i `* Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC159Ben Bacarisse
22 May 25  i i    i        i `- Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC1olcott
22 May 25  i i    i        `* Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC48joes
23 May 25  i i    `* Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC2Ben Bacarisse
21 May 25  i +* Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC5Fred. Zwarts
22 May 25  i `* Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC2Richard Damon
21 May 25  `- Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC1Richard Damon

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal