Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Fred. Zwarts" Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic Subject: Re: No decider is allowed to report on the behavior of the computation that itself is contained within Date: Thu, 23 May 2024 09:12:30 +0200 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 112 Message-ID: References: <0f7ed34c-5aaa-4858-885e-66e16777f599n@googlegroups.com> <87a6a44s02.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <87sfnv2e6e.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <3a337f21-4828-46c4-b5be-87c76cff9db4n@googlegroups.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 23 May 2024 09:12:31 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8f51d81b51ad8544854d20d509d18ce7"; logging-data="1737570"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18KNQ4CP6gDdILtAmnn4fkZ" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:zljEGpmjnbwMwFVtqOi4UdGUVpE= Content-Language: en-GB In-Reply-To: Bytes: 6076 Op 23.mei.2024 om 04:52 schreef olcott: > On 5/22/2024 9:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 5/22/24 10:33 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/22/2024 9:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 5/22/24 10:07 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 5/22/2024 6:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 5/22/24 5:19 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/24/2022 2:53 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>>>>>>> He's dry-run P(P) and established that it doesn't halt. He's >>>>>>>> invoked H on it >>>>>>>> and H reports that it doesn't halt. He's run P(P) and it halts. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So something odd is going on there that needs an explanation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *MUCH BETTER WORDS THAN ONE YEAR AGO* >>>>>>> *MUCH BETTER WORDS THAN ONE YEAR AGO* >>>>>>> *MUCH BETTER WORDS THAN ONE YEAR AGO* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> typedef int (*ptr)();  // ptr is pointer to int function in C >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is trivial to see that for every H/D pair of the infinite >>>>>>> set of H/D pairs that match the above template that >>>>>>> >>>>>>> D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own final >>>>>>> state at line 06 and halt because D correctly simulated by >>>>>>> H remains stuck in recursive simulation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Deciders are only accountable for the behavior of their inputs >>>>>>> and are thus not allowed to report on the behavior of the >>>>>>> computation >>>>>>> that they themselves are contained within. >>>>>> >>>>>> No. "Behavior of their inputss" MEANS for Turing Machines that are >>>>>> computing properties of Turing Machines (like Halt Deciders) have >>>>>> the "behavior of their input" defined as the Behavior of the >>>>>> machine their input represents/describes/specifies. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Only specifies and no matter how many times you deny it, >>>>> it remains a verified fact that: >>>>> the input to H >>>>> the input to H >>>>> the input to H >>>>> the input to H >>>>> the input to H >>>>> the input to H >>>>> the input to H >>>>> specifies that it never reaches its own final state and halts. >>>> >>>> No since when the input is run, >>> >>> *That has nothing to do with* >>> *The behavior that the input to H specifies* >>> *The behavior that the input to H specifies* >>> *The behavior that the input to H specifies* >>> *The behavior that the input to H specifies* >>> *The behavior that the input to H specifies* >>> *The behavior that the input to H specifies* >>> *The behavior that the input to H specifies* >>> >>> *The behavior that the input to H specifies* >>> *The behavior that the input to H specifies* >>> *The behavior that the input to H specifies* >>> *The behavior that the input to H specifies* >>> *The behavior that the input to H specifies* >>> *The behavior that the input to H specifies* >>> *The behavior that the input to H specifies* >>> >> >> Sure it does. >> >> What else does the question: Does the program described to the decider >> halt mean other than that? > > *That is the FREAKING WRONG QUESTION* > > *NO ONE KNEW THAT IS WAS THE WRONG QUESTION* > *ONLY BECAUSE EVERYONE REJECTED A SIMULATING* > *TERMINATION ANALYZER OUT-OF-HAND WITHOUT REVIEW* > > D of every H/D pair where D is correctly simulated > by H cannot possibly reach is own line 06 and halt. > > The failure to provide a counter-example will be > construed as proof of this. > The failure to provide a counter example is not a proof.