Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Can an abort decider be defined that cannot be fooled by any
 pathological input?
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:16:41 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 93
Message-ID: <uts819$1682g$1@dont-email.me>
References: <utoboa$5f03$1@dont-email.me> <utopik$89n1$1@dont-email.me>
 <uts4hn$15g1s$2@dont-email.me> <uts6bp$15q0v$1@dont-email.me>
 <uts79p$164d3$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:16:42 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="76db67d2e2885e22dd683b3f86d77f94";
	logging-data="1253456"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18ghYcS59fS/6EwdGDnIB0/"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:THYiY2FuU9R1fnEfDrjUFaa43s4=
In-Reply-To: <uts79p$164d3$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 4366

Op 25.mrt.2024 om 17:04 schreef olcott:
> On 3/25/2024 10:48 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 25.mrt.2024 om 16:17 schreef olcott:
>>> On 3/24/2024 3:51 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 24.mrt.2024 om 05:55 schreef olcott:
>>>>> Can an abort decider be defined that cannot be fooled by any 
>>>>> pathological input?
>>>>>
>>>>> 01 int D(ptr x)  // ptr is pointer to int function
>>>>> 02 {
>>>>> 03   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>>>> 04   if (Halt_Status)
>>>>> 05     HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>> 06   return Halt_Status;
>>>>> 07 }
>>>>> 08
>>>>> 09 void main()
>>>>> 10 {
>>>>> 11   H(D,D);
>>>>> 12 }
>>>>>
>>>>> Of all of the elements of the set of H(D,D) where H simulates its
>>>>> input there are matched pairs of otherwise identical elements that
>>>>> only differ by whether they abort their simulation or not.
>>>>>
>>>>> The half of these that don't abort are incorrect because all deciders
>>>>> must halt. This makes the other half correct about the abort/no abort
>>>>> decision.
>>>>
>>>> No. The other, aborting, half is just wrong, because it aborts when 
>>>> it is not needed. So, the half that aborts is wrong and it may be 
>>>> argued that it is better to not abort something that halts on its 
>>>> own and that 
>>>
>>> At least two software engineers with masters degrees in computer science
>>> disagree.
>>
>> Two is not many, considering that with Google for any invalid idea it 
>> is easy to find a several people with a master degree supporting it.
>>
>>> Exactly what are you software engineering skills?
>>
>> I have been professionally programming since 1986 in several 
>> languages. (Non professionally I started programming in 1975). Since 
>> about 1990 I programmed in C and since about 2000 in C++.
>>
>>
>>> I have been a professional C++ software engineer since Y2K.
>>
>> I'm sorry to hear that olcott has been so smart, but now he does not 
>> even sees what even a beginner sees.
> 
> Can D correctly simulated by H terminate normally?
> 01 int D(ptr x)  // ptr is pointer to int function
> 02 {
> 03   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
> 04   if (Halt_Status)
> 05     HERE: goto HERE;
> 06   return Halt_Status;
> 07 }
> 08
> 09 void main()
> 10 {
> 11   H(D,D);
> 12 }
> 
> *Execution Trace*
> Line 11: main() invokes H(D,D);
> 
> *keeps repeating* (unless aborted)
> Line 03: simulated D(D) invokes simulated H(D,D) that simulates D(D)

Even a beginner sees that, if the H that aborts is chosen, simulated 
H(D,D) aborts and returns false (unless aborted). So simulated D halts 
(unless aborted).

> 
> *Simulation invariant*
> D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.

Even a beginner will admit that a correct simulating decider would see 
that D would go to line 04, then line 06 and then halt (unless aborted).
The only reason D does not reach past line 03 is that it is aborted, 
otherwise it would.

> 
> *The subject matter is THE D simulated by any H as specified above*
> *Try and point put any mistake without using the strawman deception*
>

When will olcott finally see his mistakes, which even beginners see?