Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott2@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Categorically exhaustive reasoning applied to the decision to
 abort
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2024 22:45:50 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 243
Message-ID: <uu2p5e$37bas$10@dont-email.me>
References: <utlf69$39fl1$1@dont-email.me> <utlff5$3997r$3@dont-email.me>
 <utlgg1$2o1am$20@i2pn2.org> <utlirq$3dsl2$2@dont-email.me>
 <utmo5e$2plc2$8@i2pn2.org> <utmqu6$3msk5$1@dont-email.me>
 <utnmqm$3tjdn$1@dont-email.me> <utnoks$3ttm3$2@dont-email.me>
 <uto0b9$3vihs$2@dont-email.me> <uto2b5$3vtt8$4@dont-email.me>
 <uto3fp$8h3$1@dont-email.me> <uto3qm$4tt$4@dont-email.me>
 <uto4km$fq4$3@dont-email.me> <uto790$4g9n$3@dont-email.me>
 <utpl5g$fgbt$1@dont-email.me> <utsv30$1bgkl$5@dont-email.me>
 <utu2ba$1n6e7$1@dont-email.me> <utumuh$1rsiu$6@dont-email.me>
 <uu0qee$2orpg$1@dont-email.me> <uu19aj$2seum$4@dont-email.me>
 <uu1qt6$31012$1@dont-email.me> <uu1sfv$31c5f$1@dont-email.me>
 <uu2eoi$374vo$4@i2pn2.org> <uu2i42$36cl6$2@dont-email.me>
 <uu2ihs$374vn$2@i2pn2.org> <uu2kuk$3707c$2@dont-email.me>
 <uu2m74$374vo$17@i2pn2.org> <uu2mad$37bas$2@dont-email.me>
 <uu2n68$374vn$6@i2pn2.org> <uu2ng9$37bas$6@dont-email.me>
 <uu2o3b$374vn$10@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2024 03:45:51 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="481a4c8f2cd1b5f60f5d8b2395b87ce0";
	logging-data="3386716"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18w15SKiLk9O6P9yS+2c1u7"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:IADpRmBlfFXX9RXOVoiEpX+c7bo=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <uu2o3b$374vn$10@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 11484

On 3/27/2024 10:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/27/24 11:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/27/2024 10:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/27/24 10:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/27/2024 9:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 3/27/24 10:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/27/2024 8:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/27/24 9:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2024 7:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/24 3:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2024 2:09 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Op 27.mrt.2024 om 15:09 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2024 4:55 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 26.mrt.2024 om 15:43 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/26/2024 3:51 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 25.mrt.2024 om 23:50 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/24/2024 11:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-03-24 03:39:12 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2024 9:54 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/03/24 03:40, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2024 9:34 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/03/24 03:15, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2024 8:40 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/03/24 00:29, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2024 5:58 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 23/03/24 16:02, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) H(D,D) that DOES abort its simulation is 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      (ABOUT THIS ABORT DECISION)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      because it would halt and all deciders 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must always halt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To be a decider it has to give an answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To be a halt decider it has to give an answer 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is the same as whether the direct 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution of its input would halt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That would entail that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tough shit. That is the requirement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I proved otherwise in the parts you erased.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You proved that the requirement is not actually the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requirement?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I proved that it cannot be a coherent requirement, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it can still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be an incoherent requirement. Try and think it 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through for yourself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every program/input pair either halts some time, or 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Determining this is a coherent requirement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That part is coherent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The part that this determination must be done by a 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Turing machine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using descriptions of the program and input is 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coherent, too.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every decider is required by definition to only report 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this input specifies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int sum(int x, int y){ return x + y; }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sum(3,4) is not allowed to report on the sum of 5 + 6
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even if you really really believe that it should.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Exactly! Therefore H(D,D), where D is based on H that 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aborts and returns false, so that D halts, should not 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return a report about another D that does not halt, even 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if you really really believe that it should.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is enough information for sum(3,4) to compute the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sum of 3+4.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is NOT enough information for sum(3,4) to compute 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the sum of 5+6.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is enough information for H1(D,D) to compute 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halts(D,D).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is NOT enough information for H(D,D) to compute 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halts(D,D).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But it is possible to create a simulating sum decider that 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> aborts sum and returns the sum of 5+6 and then claim that 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is right, because it has not enough information to 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> calculate 3+4. It is possible, but wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only reason it has not enough information, is that it 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> aborts prematurely. That makes the decision to abort wrong. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This holds for H as well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Why are you denying reality?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott is frustrated, but wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Wrong. Should be:
>>>>>>>>>>> *will return false* (unless aborted)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There is no possible way that D simulated by any H ever
>>>>>>>>>> returns false whether its simulation has been aborted or not.
>>>>>>>>>> Are you fibbing about your programming  skill?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But that statement only hold in a world where the only 
>>>>>>>>> simulator is H, 
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes that has always been the freaking point that you deep 
>>>>>>>> dodging to run out the clock of my rebuttals.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which isn't the world you claim to be in, that of COMPUTASTION 
>>>>>>> THEORY.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you want to talk about a universe with only two "sets" of 
>>>>>>> Programs, H and D, then SAY SO, and admit that you are talking 
>>>>>>> about something WORTHLESS.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and a D that magically changes (and thus not actually a valid 
>>>>>>>>> model)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *D IS ALWAYS THESE MACHINE CODE BYTES* 
>>>>>>>> 83c4088945fc837dfc007402ebfe8b45fc8be55dc3
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And thus is NOT an actual PROGRAM, so outside the bounds of the 
>>>>>>> theory.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That is just a LIE.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========