Re: My reviewers think that halt deciders must report on the behavior of their caller

On 6/5/25 12:37 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/5/2025 6:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/4/25 11:32 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/4/2025 9:56 PM, dbush wrote:

On 6/4/2025 10:44 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/4/2025 9:13 PM, dbush wrote:

On 6/4/2025 10:09 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/4/2025 8:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/4/25 11:50 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/4/2025 2:04 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-06-03 21:39:46 +0000, olcott said:
>

They all say that HHH must report on the behavior of
direct execution of DDD()

>
No, they don't say that. A halting decider (and a partial halting
decider when it reports) must report whether the direct execution
of the computation asked about terminates. Unless that computation
happens to be DDD() it must report about another behaviour instead
of DDD().
>

yet never bother to notice that the directly executed DDD() is
the caller of HHH(DDD).

>
To say that nobody has noticed that is a lie. Perhaps they have not
mentioned what is irrelevant to whatever they said. In particular,
whether DDD() calls HHH(DDD) is irrelevant to the requirement that
a halting decider must report about a direct exection of the
computation the input specifies.
>

>
*People have ignored this for 90 years*
*People have ignored this for 90 years*
*People have ignored this for 90 years*
>
The only possible way that HHH can report on the
direct execution of DDD() is for HHH to report on
the behavior of its caller:

>
So?
>
It *IS* a fact that to be correct, it needs to answer about the direct executiom of the program that input represents.
>
That is DEFINITION.
>

>
Likewise with the definition of Russell's Paradox
until ZFC showed that this definition is complete
nonsense.
>

>
But unlike Russel's Paradox, which showed a contradiction in the axioms of naive set theory, there is no contradiction in the axioms of computation theory.  It follows from those axioms that no H exists that performs the below mapping, as you have *explicitly* agreed.
>

>
int main()
{
   DDD(); // comp theory does not allow HHH to
}        // report on the behavior of its caller.
>

>
>
int main()
{
    DDD();     // this
    HHH(DDD);  // is not the caller of this: this is }              // asking what the above will do

>
That is just not the way that computation actually works.
char* WhatIsTheNameOfThePresidentIn2030(int x);
Cannot be derived on the basis of the input.
>

>
Which just shows you don't understand how Computations, or even "truth" actually works.
>
Facts about the future under the control of volitional beings doesn't have a firm correct answer. (Social Scientist CAN come up with a distribution of likely answers).
>

 So you agree that a single integer value is also less
than enough information to correctly make this prediction.

Not at all, as such a prediction isn't a "function" of an input, but will be a fact of some sort.

 

Computations are about deterministic systems, and since programs are deterministic, questions about programs are valid, even if not all are actually computable, and THAT question (IS it computable) is one of the big focuses of Computability Theory.

 HHH cannot report on the behavior of its caller
because it cannot see its caller in its caller's
own process context.

But it has (or should have if you built the input right) ALL the code that it uses, and thus the input fully specifies what the answer shoudl be.
That HHH can't perform the computation doesn't make the question invalid.

 Even if it could see its caller it is not allowed
to report on it. It is only allowed to report on
the behavior that its input actually specifies.
 

Which *IS* the behavior of its caller, since they are one and the same program.
Sorry, you just don't understand what you are talking about, since you decided to make yourself an IDIOT about computation theory by deciding that learning it would "brainwash" you out of your own brainwashing about your lies.