Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.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: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_A_simulating_halt_decider_applied_to_the_The_Peter_?= =?UTF-8?Q?Linz_Turing_Machine_description_=E2=9F=A8=C4=A4=E2=9F=A9?= Date: Mon, 27 May 2024 14:45:12 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 114 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 27 May 2024 21:45:14 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="458305845cd025bf1a433877c96321fe"; logging-data="212739"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+WA3Yt9hcJZb8kSsXXhixH" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:bi1bLeqEJA/WOWwcXTeDNcXnPzA= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 6642 On 5/27/2024 11:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/27/24 12:22 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/27/2024 10:58 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 5/27/24 11:46 AM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/27/2024 10:25 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 5/27/24 11:06 AM, olcott wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> 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       } >>>> >>>> The above template refers to an infinite set of H/D pairs where D is >>>> correctly simulated by either pure simulator H or pure function H. This >>>> was done because many reviewers used the shell game ploy to endlessly >>>> switch which H/D pair was being referred to. >>>> >>>> *Correct Simulation Defined* >>>>     This is provided because many reviewers had a different notion of >>>>     correct simulation that diverges from this notion. >>>> >>>>     A simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly emulates 1 to N of >>>> the >>>>     x86 instructions of D in the order specified by the x86 >>>> instructions >>>>     of D. This may include M recursive emulations of H emulating itself >>>>     emulating D. >>> >>> And how do you apply that to a TEMPLATE that doesn't define what a >>> call H means (as it could be any of the infinite set of Hs that you >>> can instantiate the template on)? >>> >> >> *Somehow we got off track of the subject of this thread* > > I note that YOU keep on switching between your C program and Turing > Machines. > > Note, per the implications that you implicitly agreed to (by not even > trying to refute) the two systems are NOT equivalents of each other. > (1) I think you are wrong. I have not seen any of your reasoning that was not anchored in false assumptions. Your make fake rebuttal is to change the subject. (2) It does not matter my proof is anchored in the Linz proof and the H/D pairs are only used to have a 100% concrete basis to perfectly anchor things such as the correct meaning of D correctly simulated by H so that people cannot get away with claiming that an incorrect simulation is correct. int main() { D(D); } IS NOT THE BEHAVIOR OF D CORRECTLY SIMULATED BY H. One cannot simply ignore the pathological relationship between H and D. >> >> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ >> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ >> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >> >>   Ĥ copies its own Turing machine description: ⟨Ĥ⟩ >>   then invokes embedded_H that simulates ⟨Ĥ⟩ with ⟨Ĥ⟩ as input. >> >> For the purposes of the above analysis we hypothesize that >> embedded_H is either a UTM or a UTM that has been adapted >> to stop simulating after a finite number of steps of simulation. > > And what you do mean by that? > > Do you hypothesize that the original H was just a pure UTM, The original proof does not consider the notion of a simulating halt decider so I have to begin the proof at an earlier stage than any definition of H. > in which > case we have previously shown that H (H^) (H^) will never answer, and > thus isn't a correct decider. I include UTM embedded_H and adapted UTM embedded_H so that every simulation of 1 to ∞ steps can be reviewed. At this point embedded_H is not a decider, it either either a UTM or a UTM that has been adapted to stop simulating after a finite number of steps. As you already acknowledged neither UTM embedded_H nor ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated by UTM embedded_H would ever halt. The key point that you keep trying to avoid by perpetual attempts to change the subject is that when we know that when ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated by embedded_H for an infinite number of steps never halts that less than an infinite number of steps will not halt either. In other words NO MATTER WHAT ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated by embedded_H DOES NOT HALT. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer