XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid   
      
   On 11/19/25 10:48 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   > On 2025-11-19, dart200  wrote:   
   >> On 11/19/25 9:17 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:   
   >>> On 19/11/2025 01:40, dart200 wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> i'm currently a bit stumped on dealing with a possible a halting paradox   
   >>>> constructed within RTMs, using an RTM simulating a TM simulating an RTM.   
   >>>> this chain similarly mechanically cuts off the required information to   
   >>>> avoid a paradox, kinda like a TM alone. not fully confident it's a   
   >>>> problem or not   
   >>>   
   >>> It sounds equivalent to problems of security wrt. leaky sandboxes.   
   >>> Interesting stuff. Maybe valuable too.   
   >>   
   >> i'm actually pretty distraught over this rn. who's gunna care if all i   
   >> did was reframe the halting problem?? i'm stuck on quite literally a   
   >> liar's paradox, with emphasis on a clear lie taking place   
   >>   
   >> specifically: the simulated TM simulating an RTM is lying about the true   
   >> runtime context, bamboozling reflection's ability to prevent paradox   
   >> construction   
   >   
   > Don't you have mechanisms to prevent the procedures from being   
   > able to manipulate the environment?   
   >   
   >> und = () -> {   
   >>     simTM {   
   >>       if ( simRTM{halts(und)} )   
   >>         loop_forever()   
   >>       else   
   >>         return   
   >>     }   
   >> }   
   >   
   > So in ths above construction, simTM creates a contour around a new   
   > context, which is empty?   
      
   essentially yes. simTM does not support REFLECT, so simulations within   
   the simulation have no method of accessing the runtime context, creating   
   the illusion (or lie) of an null context   
      
   >   
   > If so, am I wrong in remembering that I might have mentioned something   
   > like this, and didn't you say you would just ban such constructs   
   > from the sandbox?   
   >   
      
   you did indeed mention something like this, and i did indeed wish to ban   
   those, but now that i understand how the specific mechanisms of my ban   
   would work, idk if i can   
      
   maybe there still is some mechanism i haven't thot of,   
      
   or perhaps it can be proven that nothing uniquely computable exists in   
   that subset of computations- that all computations run within simTM   
   either can be computed by some algo without simTM, or are undecidable,   
   therefore partitioning off the problematic section of general computing   
   (which we also can't do rn either)   
      
   --   
   a burnt out swe investigating into why our tooling doesn't involve   
   basic semantic proofs like halting analysis   
      
   please excuse my pseudo-pyscript,   
      
   ~ nick   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)