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

On 5/24/2025 8:01 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/24/2025 7:57 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
>

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

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.

>
I think you're misreading it (or, if you prefer, I have yet to be
convinced that I'm misreading it).

>
OK.  This sub thread is an excellent example of how cranks keep it all
going without shining any light on what's going on.
>
If the remark is correct, then it misrepresents PO's intended meaning
because he is discussing one of the cases where false is the correct
result for a halting computation.  If the remark does represent his
intended meaning then it is unclear because you think it is simply a
tautology.
>
That makes it a bad quote for me to have pulled out.  I should have
stuck with this exchange:
>
Me: Here's the key question: do you still assert that H(P,P) == false is
     the "correct" answer even though P(P) halts?
>
PO: Yes that is the correct answer even though P(P) halts.
>
Everything that followed this was, as far as I can tell, an attempt be
less clear.  But as Richard Heathfield has pointed out, we should always
attempt to address the strongest and clearest-made point that is
offered.  (I think this advice was originally from Daniel Dennet.)
>
I see you have offered a very detailed interpretation of what you think
the words used by PO mean.  Please forgive me for not going into it in
any more detail.  I'll just take that to mean PO was unclear and should
not have quoted his ambiguous words.  When PO is clear, he is very
explicitly wrong, and that's the main point that keeps getting lost.
>

 _DDD()
[00002192] 55             push ebp
[00002193] 8bec           mov ebp,esp
[00002195] 6892210000     push 00002192
[0000219a] e833f4ffff     call 000015d2  // call HHH
[0000219f] 83c404         add esp,+04
[000021a2] 5d             pop ebp
[000021a3] c3             ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [000021a3]
 Since it is an easily verified fact that DDD emulated
by HHH according to the rules of the x86 language
would never stop running unless aborted by HHH:
 I can't imagine how anyone disagreeing with this
is not a damned liar. If anyone disagrees knowing
that they simply don't understand these things
they too are also damned liars.
 

int main()
{
   DDD();  // No matter what the f-ck its caller does
}         // The finite string input to the HHH(DDD)
           // that DDD() calls SPECIFIES a non-halting
           // sequence of configurations.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer