Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic Subject: Re: Every D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own line 06 and halt Date: Mon, 20 May 2024 22:39:21 -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: Tue, 21 May 2024 02:39:21 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="1722705"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 10827 Lines: 228 On 5/20/24 10:25 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/20/2024 7:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 5/20/24 2:03 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/20/2024 6:24 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 5/19/24 11:22 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 5/19/2024 10:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 5/19/24 10:52 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/19/2024 8:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/19/24 8:06 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2024 7:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> typedef int (*ptr)();  // ptr is pointer to int function >>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> For every H/D pair of the above template D correctly simulated by >>>>>>>>> *pure function* H cannot possibly reach its own final state at >>>>>>>>> line 06 and halt. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ok, so adding that H is a pure function, that means that since >>>>>>>> your outer H(D,D) is going to return 0, all logic must be >>>>>>>> compatible with the fact that EVERY call to H(D,D) will also >>>>>>>> eventually return 0. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Remember also, THIS D is defined to call THIS H, that does >>>>>>>> exactly the same as the H that is deciding it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> OK, good. >>>>>> >>>>>> Right, so it doesn't matter what any other D does, it matters what >>>>>> THIS D does, and this D calls aths H. >>>>>> >>>>>> Remember, you reinstated the Computation model by enforcing Pure >>>>>> Functions. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We can use my unique time/date stamp as an alternative. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Remember, YOU are the one saying you are needing to change the >>>>>>>>>> definition from the classical theory, where we have things >>>>>>>>>> well defined. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> YOU have decider that H is just whatever C code you want to >>>>>>>>>> write for it, and D is the input proved. (which doesn't >>>>>>>>>> actually match the Linz or Sipser proof, but fairly close). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> With THAT set of definitions we have a lot of options that >>>>>>>>>> break your incorrectly assumed results. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The first method has been discussed here by Flibble. While the >>>>>>>>>> final answer he got to doesn't fit the requirements, the first >>>>>>>>>> part of the method DOES show that it is possible for an H to >>>>>>>>>> simulate to past line 3. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> THe basic idea is that if H(M,d) finds that its simulation of >>>>>>>>>> M(d) get to a call to H(M,d) then rather that your idea of >>>>>>>>>> just saying it will get stuck and declair the input invalid, >>>>>>>>>> since there ARE a number of possible inputs that there is a >>>>>>>>>> "correct" answer that H can give to >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That D is calling H does not prove recursive simulation. >>>>>>>>> That D is calling H with its same parameters does seem >>>>>>>>> to prove non-halting recursive simulation. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nope. Try to actuall PROVE it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That is off-topic for this post. >>>>>>> All that we need know is that no D simulated by any H >>>>>>> ever reaches its own line 06 and halts. >>>>>> >>>>>> Nope. Make a claim, you need to prove it. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *In other different post not this one* >>>>> >>>>> I am using categorically exhaustive reasoning that can work >>>>> through every possibility that can possibly exist in a feasible >>>>> amount of time as long as the category is very very narrow. >>>> >>>> But you can't PRECISELY define the category, or what you want to >>>> reason about, so your logic is worthless as it is baseless. >>>> >>> >>> *POINT TO ANY ACTUAL MISTAKE OR AMBIGUITY WITH THIS VERSION* >>> >>> typedef int (*ptr)();  // ptr is pointer to int function >>> 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. >>> >>> Execution Trace >>> Line 11: main() invokes H(D,D); >>> >>> keeps repeating (unless aborted) >>> Line 01: >>> Line 02: >>> Line 03: simulated D(D) invokes simulated H(D,D) that simulates D(D) >>> >>> Simulation invariant: >>> D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own line 03. >>> >>> For every H/D pair of the above template D correctly simulated by >>> pure function (thus computable function) H cannot possibly reach its >>> own final state at line 06 and halt. >>> >> >> Which thus doesn't correct simulate the call to H > > *Counter-factual, try again* > We are not talking about any of your misconceptions the term: > "simulate" is expressly defined. And how did your H "Correctly" simulate the call to H? > > This is the only post about this subject that I will respond ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========