Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
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 23:01:00 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <uttdpd$32apk$14@i2pn2.org>
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> <uts819$1682g$1@dont-email.me>
 <utschj$17h7c$1@dont-email.me> <utt2f8$32apl$1@i2pn2.org>
 <utt3qt$1cuoq$1@dont-email.me> <utt4h2$32apl$3@i2pn2.org>
 <utt5bv$1d2ks$2@dont-email.me> <utt5v2$32apk$11@i2pn2.org>
 <utt7e1$1dpmh$1@dont-email.me> <utt8fg$32apl$6@i2pn2.org>
 <utt8oq$1dv6f$2@dont-email.me> <uttank$32apk$12@i2pn2.org>
 <uttdbr$1evji$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 03:01:01 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3222324"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <uttdbr$1evji$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 10726
Lines: 236

On 3/25/24 10:53 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/25/2024 9:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/25/24 9:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/25/2024 8:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/25/24 9:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/25/2024 7:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/25/24 8:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/25/2024 7:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/25/24 8:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/25/2024 6:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/25/24 1:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/25/2024 11:16 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I am estimating that you must be fibbing about your 
>>>>>>>>>>> programming skill.
>>>>>>>>>>> The D simulated by any implementation of H (that aborts or 
>>>>>>>>>>> does not
>>>>>>>>>>> abort its simulation) shown above cannot possibly reach its 
>>>>>>>>>>> own line 04
>>>>>>>>>>> also shown above.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But that isn't the question.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *That <is> the abort decision question*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But you agreed that a correct abort decider oly NEEDS to abort 
>>>>>>>> its simulation if the correct simulation by a pure correct 
>>>>>>>> simulator of the input given to H (which doesn't change, so for 
>>>>>>>> this case, still calls that original H) will never reach a final 
>>>>>>>> state.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The question is does that machine described by the input Halt 
>>>>>>>>>> when run, or, alternatively, does its correct simulation (not 
>>>>>>>>>> just by H) run forever (and thus needs to be aborted)?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Since you know that H(D,D) must abort its simulation to prevent 
>>>>>>>>> its
>>>>>>>>> own infinite execution I don't understand why you would lie 
>>>>>>>>> about it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But an H that doesn't abort and an H that does abort are looking 
>>>>>>>> at different inputs "D", since you agree that the behavior of D 
>>>>>>>> changes based on the H that it is using.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not at all. Of the infinite set of every possible implementation of
>>>>>>> H where H(D,D) simulates its input everyone that chose to abort is
>>>>>>> necessarily correct.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't understand why you persist in lying about this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I really want to get on to the next step and see if any input can
>>>>>>>>> fool an abort decider into making the wrong abort decision.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But you need to get this step right first.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Perhaps you already know that you are not up to this challenge?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, it seems that YOU are not up to it, as you can't seem to 
>>>>>>>> understand the error that you are making.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You keep on lying to yourself about what your requirements are.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am not the one that keeps using the strawman deception to change
>>>>>>> the subject away from H(D,D) an abort decider for the above D.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Neither am I.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> YOU agreed that the criteria for an abort decider is only CORRECT 
>>>>>> if a CORRECT simulation of the exact input given to H(D,D) (i.e 
>>>>>> UTM(D,D) ) does not halt, where D still calls that H(D,D)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I never agreed to that.
>>>>
>>>> Yes you did:
> 
> *You just admitted to lying abut this* (see below).
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========