XPost: comp.theory, comp.lang.c++   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/18/2025 10:31 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   > On 2025-11-19, olcott  wrote:   
   >> On 11/18/2025 8:53 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>> On 2025-11-19, olcott  wrote:   
   >>>> On 11/18/2025 7:01 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>>>> On 2025-11-18, olcott  wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 11/18/2025 3:21 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 2025-11-18, olcott  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> If you ask a decider to determine if my   
   >>>>>>>> sister's name is "Sally" and I don't tell   
   >>>>>>>> it who I am then the information contained   
   >>>>>>>> in the input is insufficient. This does not   
   >>>>>>>> in any way limit computation itself.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> The problem is that UTM(D) can work out the fact that   
   >>>>>>> D halts. Why is it that UTM knows that D's sister's   
   >>>>>>> name is Sally, but H does not?   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> UTM(D) is answering a different question.   
   >>>>>> (a) It is not providing any answer at all.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Well, of course, by "UTM" we mean a /decider/ that purely simulates:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>     bool UTM(ptr P) {   
   >>>>>       sim S = sim_create(P);   
   >>>>>       sim_step_exhaustively(S);   
   >>>>>       return true;   
   >>>>>     }   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> All deciders applied to D are tasked with answering exactly the same   
   >>>>> question.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Pretending that a different question was asked is nonproductive;   
   >>>>> the answer will be interpreted to the original question.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> All the information needed to answer is positively contained in D.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> It is just too complex relative to H.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> What The F does UTM decide when DD calls UTM(DD)?   
   >>>   
   >>> That doesn't happen; DD calls HHH(DD).   
   >>>   
   >>> A diagonal functon set against UTM, call it DDUTM,   
   >>> cannot be decided by UTM(DDUTM).   
   >>>   
   >>> That call simply does not return.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Yes, and the other one does return proving the   
   >> whole point that I have been making for three   
   >> years that everyone (besides Ben) was too damned   
   >> dishonest to acknowledge has been true all along.   
   >   
   > What "other one"? Is that referring to HHH(DD)?   
   >   
   > HHH(DD) returns; UTM(DDUTM) does not return.   
   >   
   > That's four functions; HHH isn't UTM; DD isn't DDUTM.   
   >   
   > HHH and DDUTM are unrelated; UTM and DD are unrelated.   
   >   
      
   void DDD()   
   {   
      HHH(DDD);   
      return;   
   }   
      
   A simulating termination analyzer that must   
   abort the interpretation of the above ASCII   
   string to prevent its own non-termination   
   has different behavior than a simulating   
   termination analyzer that need not abort   
   its interpretation of the above exact same   
   ASCII string.   
      
      
   --   
   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)