Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Can any pathological input thwart a simulating abort decider?
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2024 10:15:13 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <utmo5h$2plc2$9@i2pn2.org>
References: <utkjd0$335kr$1@dont-email.me> <utldmr$2o1an$1@i2pn2.org>
 <utledq$3997r$1@dont-email.me> <utlg53$2o1am$18@i2pn2.org>
 <utlgh4$3997r$6@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2024 14:15:13 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2938242"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <utlgh4$3997r$6@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4096
Lines: 94

On 3/22/24 10:58 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/22/2024 9:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/22/24 10:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/22/2024 9:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/22/24 2:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Except that it FAILS to meet your agreed upon definition of 
>>>> correctly deciding to abort, and uses the INVALID logic of comparing 
>>>> itself to a DIFFERENT machine.
>>>
>>> On 3/20/2024 6:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>  > On 3/20/24 6:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>  >> Every H(D,D) that doesn't abort its simulated input
>>>  >> never stops running.
>>>  >
>>>  > Yep, shows that H's that don't abort the D built on
>>>  > them won't be deciders...
>>>
>>> Therefore Every H(D,D) that does abort its simulated input
>>> is necessarily correct.
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> Try to show an actual proof of that.
> 
> A proof that applies to an entire class of objects
> necessarily applies to each element of this class.

Right, Every H that doen't have the abort code that gets activiated by 
this input, fails to be a Decider for the input based on IT, an H that 
fails to abort for this input, and thus actually needed to abort.

That applies to EVERY H, THAT DOESN'T ABORT, that is looking at in input 
based on an H that doesn't abrt.

Hs that do abort, looking at inputs based on Hs that abort, are not in 
that class.

> 
> *You already agreed to this, thus cannot*
> *get away saying that you don't understand*

And why do Hs that abort belong to the class of Hs that do not abort?

Remember, you AGREE that the input is different for different Hs, and 
thus we can't look that the other class of inputs for the answer.

> 
>>
>> It is INVALID to use the behavior of a DIFFERENT program to prove 
>> something about this program.

Pointing this out again, your logical fallacy.

>>
>>
>> Just shows you have no idea on how to actually do correct logic, you 
>> use about every fallacy in the book, thinking they are correct logic.
>>
>>>
>>> I take your stalling tactic to indicate that a universal abort
>>> decider may very well exist.
>>>
>>
>> Nope, but that is just your own stupidity talking.
>>
>>
>