Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic Subject: Re: Can any pathological input thwart a simulating abort decider? Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2024 20:28:31 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 194 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 02:28:33 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b02d0a9d754c59878ed2d7beef0f0dc1"; logging-data="1506511"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/dqh0HrQxXAqZ02qJZsSaF" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:CkUe9XmnMtz0H9KwzNG5QyuzCAQ= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 9430 On 3/25/2024 7:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 3/25/24 8:44 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 3/25/2024 7:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 3/25/24 8:22 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 3/25/2024 6:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> None-the-less they all share the common property that they either >>>> run forever or abort the simulation of their input. All of the other >>>> differences don't make and damn difference at all. >>>> >>> >>> But that isn't a simple property, so you are creating a FALSE DICHOTOMY. >>> >>> All the ones that fail to abort >> >> Are in the set that fail to abort, [set(a)] >> LEAVING ALL OF THE OTHER ONES IN THE SET THAT ABORTS [set(b)] >> >> Instead of the deceptive names of the individual members we can >> call them set (a) and set (b). > > Fine, and you have shown that we needed to abort all of the simulations > of D built on an H in set (a). > > That DOESN'T meen that it was correct to abort the simulation of any of > the Ds built from an H from set (b). > By definition every (a) is wrong and every (b) is correct. >> >> It is like you are trying to get away with claiming that ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========