Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic Subject: Re: Categorically exhaustive reasoning applied to the decision to abort Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2024 22:45:50 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 243 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2024 03:45:51 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="481a4c8f2cd1b5f60f5d8b2395b87ce0"; logging-data="3386716"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18w15SKiLk9O6P9yS+2c1u7" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:IADpRmBlfFXX9RXOVoiEpX+c7bo= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 11484 On 3/27/2024 10:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 3/27/24 11:17 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 3/27/2024 10:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 3/27/24 10:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 3/27/2024 9:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 3/27/24 10:33 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 3/27/2024 8:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 3/27/24 9:45 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 3/27/2024 7:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 3/27/24 3:36 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2024 2:09 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Op 27.mrt.2024 om 15:09 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2024 4:55 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 26.mrt.2024 om 15:43 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/26/2024 3:51 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 25.mrt.2024 om 23:50 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/24/2024 11:42 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-03-24 03:39:12 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2024 9:54 PM, immibis wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/03/24 03:40, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2024 9:34 PM, immibis wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/03/24 03:15, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2024 8:40 PM, immibis wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/03/24 00:29, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2024 5:58 PM, immibis wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 23/03/24 16:02, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) H(D,D) that DOES abort its simulation is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      (ABOUT THIS ABORT DECISION) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      because it would halt and all deciders >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must always halt. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To be a decider it has to give an answer. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To be a halt decider it has to give an answer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is the same as whether the direct >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution of its input would halt. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That would entail that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tough shit. That is the requirement. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I proved otherwise in the parts you erased. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You proved that the requirement is not actually the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requirement? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I proved that it cannot be a coherent requirement, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it can still >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be an incoherent requirement. Try and think it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through for yourself. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every program/input pair either halts some time, or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never halts. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Determining this is a coherent requirement. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That part is coherent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The part that this determination must be done by a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Turing machine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using descriptions of the program and input is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coherent, too. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every decider is required by definition to only report >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this input specifies. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int sum(int x, int y){ return x + y; } >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sum(3,4) is not allowed to report on the sum of 5 + 6 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even if you really really believe that it should. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Exactly! Therefore H(D,D), where D is based on H that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aborts and returns false, so that D halts, should not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return a report about another D that does not halt, even >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if you really really believe that it should. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is enough information for sum(3,4) to compute the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sum of 3+4. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is NOT enough information for sum(3,4) to compute >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the sum of 5+6. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is enough information for H1(D,D) to compute >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halts(D,D). >>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is NOT enough information for H(D,D) to compute >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halts(D,D). >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> But it is possible to create a simulating sum decider that >>>>>>>>>>>>> aborts sum and returns the sum of 5+6 and then claim that >>>>>>>>>>>>> it is right, because it has not enough information to >>>>>>>>>>>>> calculate 3+4. It is possible, but wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>> The only reason it has not enough information, is that it >>>>>>>>>>>>> aborts prematurely. That makes the decision to abort wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>> This holds for H as well. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Why are you denying reality? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Olcott is frustrated, but wrong. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Wrong. Should be: >>>>>>>>>>> *will return false* (unless aborted) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> There is no possible way that D simulated by any H ever >>>>>>>>>> returns false whether its simulation has been aborted or not. >>>>>>>>>> Are you fibbing about your programming  skill? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But that statement only hold in a world where the only >>>>>>>>> simulator is H, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes that has always been the freaking point that you deep >>>>>>>> dodging to run out the clock of my rebuttals. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Which isn't the world you claim to be in, that of COMPUTASTION >>>>>>> THEORY. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you want to talk about a universe with only two "sets" of >>>>>>> Programs, H and D, then SAY SO, and admit that you are talking >>>>>>> about something WORTHLESS. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> and a D that magically changes (and thus not actually a valid >>>>>>>>> model) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *D IS ALWAYS THESE MACHINE CODE BYTES* >>>>>>>> 83c4088945fc837dfc007402ebfe8b45fc8be55dc3 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And thus is NOT an actual PROGRAM, so outside the bounds of the >>>>>>> theory. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That is just a LIE. ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========