Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connectionsPath: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic Subject: Re: Can any pathological input thwart a simulating abort decider? Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2024 19:44:14 -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: Mon, 25 Mar 2024 23:44:14 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="3222324"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 7303 Lines: 152 On 3/25/24 2:07 PM, olcott wrote: > On 3/23/2024 5:19 PM, immibis wrote: >> On 23/03/24 20:26, olcott wrote: >>> On 3/23/2024 1:57 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>> Op 23.mrt.2024 om 17:53 schreef olcott: >>>>> On 3/23/2024 11:31 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>> Op 23.mrt.2024 om 17:08 schreef olcott: >>>>>>> On 3/23/2024 9:43 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>> Op 23.mrt.2024 om 14:58 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2024 4:38 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Op 22.mrt.2024 om 19:41 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>>> 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 } >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> H is a simulating abort decider that supposed to >>>>>>>>>>> correctly determine whether or not it needs to abort >>>>>>>>>>> the simulation of any pathological inputs that are >>>>>>>>>>> attempting to thwart this abort decision. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> H must abort every simulated input that would not >>>>>>>>>>> otherwise halt to prevent its own non-termination. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It is a self-evident verified fact that every H(D,D) >>>>>>>>>>> that decides to abort its simulated D(D) is correct >>>>>>>>>>> in doing so because this does prevent its own >>>>>>>>>>> non-termination. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It is self-evident that when H is programmed to abort and >>>>>>>>>> return false, then [the simulated] D will >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> immediately stop running never having reached its last >>>>>>>>> instruction to halt. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As can be seen above, if H returns false in line 03, then D will >>>>>>>> go to line 04 and line 06 and halt (unless aborted). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You still do not understand that functions called in infinite >>>>>>> recursion never return to their caller, thus must have grossly >>>>>>> exaggerated your programming skill. >>>>>> >>>>>> Even a beginner in C will see that if the simulated D, using the H >>>>>> that is programmed to abort and return false, will continue with >>>>>> line 04 then line 06 and halt (unless aborted). >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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 } >>>>> >>>>> That is the strawman deception we are only talking about the >>>>> fact that the D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach >>>>> its own line 06 and halt. >>>> >>>> Denying a verified fact is not a strong rebuttal. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> When the simulated D calls its simulator this call cannot possibly >>>>>>> return to its caller. The relationship between the simulated D(D) >>>>>>> and its simulator makes a call D(D) to its own simulator isomorphic >>>>>>> to infinite recursion. >>>>>> >>>>>> It is exactly the relation with the simulator that aborts, which >>>>>> makes that also the simulated H is programmed to abort and return >>>>>> false. >>>>>> Olcott is again contradicting himself. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That the directly executed D(D) is an entirely different instance >>>>>>> that does not have this same pathological relationship is summed >>>>>>> up in your own reply. >>>>>> >>>>>> I am not talking about a directly executed D, but a simulated D! >>>>>> I am not talking about a directly executed D, but a simulated D! >>>>>> I am not talking about a directly executed D, but a simulated D! >>>>>> >>>>>> This simulated D halts (unless aborted)! >>>>> >>>>> D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own line >>>>> 06 and halt. That you say otherwise proves your insufficient >>>>> programming skill. >>>>> >>>>>> It seems too difficult for olcott to see, what even a beginner >>>>>> sees, that H, programmed to return false, also returns false when >>>>>> simulated (unless aborted). >>>>> >>>>> When I worked at the US Army Corps of engineers an independent >>>>> contractor rated my programs as the best quality of all of the >>>>> programs that they reviewed and they reviewed all of the programs. >>>> >>>> If true, I am very sorry for olcott, that he is no longer able to >>>> see, what even a beginner sees, that H, programmed to return false, >>>> also returns false when simulated (unless aborted). >>> >>> Everyone with sufficient programming skill can see that this is a >>> verified fact: >>> >>> *D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own final state* >>> *at line 06 in an infinite number of steps of correct simulation* >>> Some of these people might lie about it. >>> >> >> Everyone with sufficient programming skill can see that H is not >> defined as part of program D, and if you define H inside program D, >> then it might be possible to tell whether it reaches line 06 or not. > > *It is stipulated that H must correctly simulate 1 to ∞ steps of D* > Every other detail about H is unspecified because it is irrelevant. Then your stipulation is just ILLOGICAL, as a given H can only do one thing. Garbage In, Garbage Out, and proof is shown to come from an unsound mine. > > 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. Which are DIFFERENGT. I guess you are just claiming that we can consider a cat to be a 10 story office building. > > 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. > > Nope, proves you to be a pathological lying idiot.