Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.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 D simulated by H terminate normally? Message_ID Provided V2
Date: Sun, 19 May 2024 23:11:40 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v2ef1c$1g2n9$14@i2pn2.org>
References: <v0k4jc$laej$1@dont-email.me> <v0l11u$ussl$1@dont-email.me>
 <v0lh24$123q3$1@dont-email.me> <v0lic7$2g492$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v0lkas$12q0o$3@dont-email.me> <v0loq2$2g493$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v0lq7d$14579$2@dont-email.me> <v0ls98$2g492$7@i2pn2.org>
 <v0m29q$166o1$1@dont-email.me> <v0m37e$2gl1e$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v0m3v5$16k3h$1@dont-email.me> <v0m55t$2gl1f$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v0m5sn$172p4$1@dont-email.me> <v0m7em$2gl1f$5@i2pn2.org>
 <v0m7tq$17dpv$1@dont-email.me> <v0m8g9$2gl1e$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v0m978$17k7o$3@dont-email.me> <v0mko6$2hf3s$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v0n59h$1h98e$1@dont-email.me> <v0o037$2j1tu$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v0oc65$1q3aq$3@dont-email.me> <v0p9ts$2ki5r$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v0q1rk$2a3u1$1@dont-email.me> <v0qkti$2m1nf$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v0r4a3$2hb7o$6@dont-email.me> <v0rsbr$2m1nf$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v0segm$2v4oq$1@dont-email.me> <v0t8o9$2p3ri$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v0tpjf$3881i$5@dont-email.me> <v0ulma$2qov4$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v2e45j$3kf2k$1@dont-email.me> <v2e7up$1g2n9$13@i2pn2.org>
 <v2edto$3pl2i$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 20 May 2024 03:11:40 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1575657"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v2edto$3pl2i$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5449
Lines: 100

On 5/19/24 10:52 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/19/2024 8:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/19/24 8:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/1/2024 7:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>> typedef int (*ptr)();  // ptr is pointer to int function
>>> 00 int H(ptr p, ptr i);
>>> 01 int D(ptr p)
>>> 02 {
>>> 03   int Halt_Status = H(p, p);
>>> 04   if (Halt_Status)
>>> 05     HERE: goto HERE;
>>> 06   return Halt_Status;
>>> 07 }
>>> 08
>>> 09 int main()
>>> 10 {
>>> 11   H(D,D);
>>> 12   return 0;
>>> 13 }
>>>
>>> In the above case a simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly 
>>> emulates at least one of the x86 instructions of D in the order 
>>> specified by the x86 instructions of D.
>>>
>>> This may include correctly emulating the x86 instructions of H in the 
>>> order specified by the x86 instructions of H thus calling H(D,D) in 
>>> recursive simulation.
>>>
>>> For every H/D pair of the above template D correctly simulated by
>>> *pure function* H cannot possibly reach its own final state at
>>> line 06 and halt.
>>>
>>
>> Ok, so adding that H is a pure function, that means that since your 
>> outer H(D,D) is going to return 0, all logic must be compatible with 
>> the fact that EVERY call to H(D,D) will also eventually return 0.
>>
>>
>> Remember also, THIS D is defined to call THIS H, that does exactly the 
>> same as the H that is deciding it.
>>
> 
> OK, good.

Right, so it doesn't matter what any other D does, it matters what THIS 
D does, and this D calls aths H.

Remember, you reinstated the Computation model by enforcing Pure Functions.

> 
>>>
>>> <snip so that Message ID links to whole message>
>>> We can use my unique time/date stamp as an alternative.
>>>
>>>> Remember, YOU are the one saying you are needing to change the 
>>>> definition from the classical theory, where we have things well 
>>>> defined.
>>>>
>>>> YOU have decider that H is just whatever C code you want to write 
>>>> for it, and D is the input proved. (which doesn't actually match the 
>>>> Linz or Sipser proof, but fairly close).
>>>>
>>>> With THAT set of definitions we have a lot of options that break 
>>>> your incorrectly assumed results.
>>>>
>>>> The first method has been discussed here by Flibble. While the final 
>>>> answer he got to doesn't fit the requirements, the first part of the 
>>>> method DOES show that it is possible for an H to simulate to past 
>>>> line 3.
>>>>
>>>> THe basic idea is that if H(M,d) finds that its simulation of M(d) 
>>>> get to a call to H(M,d) then rather that your idea of just saying it 
>>>> will get stuck and declair the input invalid, since there ARE a 
>>>> number of possible inputs that there is a "correct" answer that H 
>>>> can give to 
>>>
>>> That D is calling H does not prove recursive simulation.
>>> That D is calling H with its same parameters does seem
>>> to prove non-halting recursive simulation.
>>
>> Nope. Try to actuall PROVE it.
>>
> 
> That is off-topic for this post.
> All that we need know is that no D simulated by any H
> ever reaches its own line 06 and halts.

Nope. Make a claim, you need to prove it.

> 
> I start ignoring everything you say as soon as you go off-topic.
> If you said anything below that it relevant to some other post
> I will read it when you post it there.
> 

And I will ignore everything that was said when you ignored muy point.


After all, we don't care about other H's and there simulation of other 
D's, we care what THIS D does.