XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/19/2025 1:47 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   > On 2025-11-19, dart200  wrote:   
   >> 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   
   >   
   > In a computational system with context, functions do not have a halting   
   > status that depends only on their arguments, but on their arguments plus   
   > context.   
   >   
   > Therefore, the question "does this function halt when applied to these   
   > arguments" isn't right in this domain; it needs to be "does this function,   
   > in a context with such and such content, and these arguments, halt".   
   >   
   > Then, to have a diagonal case whch opposes the decider, that diagonal   
   > case has to be sure to be using that same context, otherwise it   
   > is not diagonal; i.e.   
   >   
   >    in_context C { // <-- but but construct is banned!   
   >   
   >       // D, in context C "behaves opposite" to the decision   
   >       // produced by H regarding D in context C:   
   >   
   >       D() {   
   >         if (H(D, C))   
   >           loop();   
   >       }   
   >    }   
   >   
   > Or:   
   >   
   >    D() {   
   >      let C = getParentContext(); // likewise banned?   
   >   
   >      if (H(D, C))   
   >        loop();   
   >    }   
   >   
   >   
   >   
      
   Looks interesting. I adapted AWK to be very helpful   
   for maintenance programming of million line software systems.   
      
   https://stackoverflow.com/search?q=is%3aanswer%20TXR   
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott   
      
   My 28 year goal has been to make   
   "true on the basis of meaning" computable.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)