Path: ...!news.nobody.at!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: Can an abort decider be defined that cannot be fooled by any
 pathological input?
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2024 19:37:19 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 152
Message-ID: <utt5bv$1d2ks$2@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> <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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 01:37:19 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b02d0a9d754c59878ed2d7beef0f0dc1";
	logging-data="1477276"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19LNrDusKKM4h9BjnaMCrQn"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:a8LVXknDMyHtJl6JTec1r1V7I10=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <utt4h2$32apl$3@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 6939

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.

>>
>>> Correct simulation refering to a simulation of the EXACT input given 
>>> to H, that calls the H that you claim to be giving the correct answer 
>>> (and not the "correct simulator")
>>
> 

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer