XPost: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, sci.math   
   From: 643-408-1753@kylheku.com   
      
   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?   
      
   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?   
      
   --   
   TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr   
   Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal   
   Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)