Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic Subject: Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2024 14:10:02 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2024 18:10:02 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="2543375"; 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: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 12100 Lines: 241 On 4/27/24 1:51 PM, olcott wrote: > On 4/27/2024 12:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 4/27/24 10:32 AM, olcott wrote: >>> On 4/27/2024 6:45 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 4/27/24 1:34 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 4/26/2024 10:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 4/26/24 11:02 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 4/26/2024 9:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 4/26/24 9:43 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 4/26/2024 7:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 4/26/24 8:02 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 4/26/2024 12:05 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/26/2024 11:19 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/26/24 11:34 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/26/2024 3:32 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-25 14:15:20 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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   D(D); >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 12 } >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That H(D,D) must report on the behavior of its caller is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one that is incorrect. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What H(D,D) must report is independet of what procedure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (if any) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calls it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus when H(D,D) correctly reports that its input D(D) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly >>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach its own line 6 and halt no matter what H does then H >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can abort its >>>>>>>>>>>>>> input and report that its input D(D) does not halt. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> But since the program D(D) DOES reach its own line 6 when >>>>>>>>>>>>> run, because H aborts its simulation and return 0 (since >>>>>>>>>>>>> that is what you say this H will do), your statement is >>>>>>>>>>>>> PROVEN TO BE A LIE, and you "logic" just a collection of >>>>>>>>>>>>> contradictions. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own line 06 thus >>>>>>>>>>>> when we do >>>>>>>>>>>> not use the strawman deception to refer to a different D >>>>>>>>>>>> then we know >>>>>>>>>>>> that D simulated by H never halts. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that the D(D) executed in main does halt is none >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of H's >>>>>>>>>>>>>> business because H is not allowed to report on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of its >>>>>>>>>>>>>> caller. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, H doesn't need to report on the Behavior of >>>>>>>>>>>>> the Program described by its input because it isn't >>>>>>>>>>>>> actually a Halt Decider, because you are just a LIAR. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Anyone knowing the theory of computation knows that H is not >>>>>>>>>>>> allowed to >>>>>>>>>>>> report on the behavior of its caller. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> In computability theory and computational complexity theory, an >>>>>>>>>>>> undecidable problem is a decision problem for which it is >>>>>>>>>>>> proved to be >>>>>>>>>>>> impossible to construct an algorithm that always leads to a >>>>>>>>>>>> correct yes- >>>>>>>>>>>> or-no answer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undecidable_problem >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The behavior of the simulated D(D) before H aborts its >>>>>>>>>>>> simulation is >>>>>>>>>>>> different than the behavior of the executed D(D) after H has >>>>>>>>>>>> aborted >>>>>>>>>>>> its simulation. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Every time that a simulated input would never stop running >>>>>>>>>>>> unless >>>>>>>>>>>> aborted the simulating termination analyzer must abort this >>>>>>>>>>>> simulation >>>>>>>>>>>> to prevent its own infinite execution. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> H(D,D) is a case of this H1(D,D) is not a case of this even >>>>>>>>>>>> though >>>>>>>>>>>> the only difference between H and H1 is that D calls H and D >>>>>>>>>>>> does >>>>>>>>>>>> not call H1. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> D simulated by H would never stop running unless aborted and >>>>>>>>>>>> cannot >>>>>>>>>>>> possibly reach its own line 06 and halt no matter what H does. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thus whenever we do not use the strawman deception to refer >>>>>>>>>>>> to a >>>>>>>>>>>> different D we know that D simulated by H specifies a >>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting >>>>>>>>>>>> sequence of configurations to H. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *This might be a more succinct way of summing that up* >>>>>>>>>>> When you understand that D simulated by H cannot possibly >>>>>>>>>>> reach past its own line 03 (thus cannot possibly halt) no >>>>>>>>>>> matter what H does and >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But since H does whatever H does, if H aborts and returns 0, >>>>>>>>>> the the direct execution of D, which is what actually matters, >>>>>>>>>> DOES get to that point. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That is another much less useful way to make a universally correct >>>>>>>>> termination analyzer: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> int H(ptr x, ptr y) >>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>    printf("The input program does whatever it does!\n"); >>>>>>>>>    return 777; // code for it does what it does >>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But that doesn't make H answer the question. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I guess you don't understand what I am saying. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You said "no matter what H does", but that is a MEANINGLESS >>>>>>>> statement, because H will do what H is programmed to do, so we >>>>>>>> don't need to look at other behavior, but just the behavior that >>>>>>>> H ac >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It can be verified through ordinary software engineering that D(D) >>>>>>>>> simulated H cannot possibly reach past its own line 03. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes, but that is just a lying RED HERRING, as the question isn't >>>>>>>> about what H's simulation of the input does, but what the >>>>>>>> program the input actually represents does when run. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> YOu are just effectively admitting that you are nothing but a >>>>>>>> stupid liar that doesn't know what he is talking about. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It can be verified through computer science that this means >>>>>>>>> that D(D) simulated H by never reaches its own final state and >>>>>>>>> halts whether >>>>>>>>> H aborts its simulation or not. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Which, since this H DOES abort its simulation is trying to >>>>>>>> introduce a red herring. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> D(D) simulated by H never halts ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========