Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Can any pathological input thwart a simulating abort decider?
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2024 17:31:57 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 72
Message-ID: <utn05t$3o86u$2@dont-email.me>
References: <utkjd0$335kr$1@dont-email.me> <utm7u7$3iaut$1@dont-email.me>
 <utmn5h$3lnmi$5@dont-email.me> <utmppq$3mgs3$1@dont-email.me>
 <utmuq0$3ncb0$5@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 16:31:57 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4209bd87c5b5c0639a331d8fa156f86c";
	logging-data="3940574"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX185u6zSgiNNpfCHwGPtDfiL"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:UYxQSEQfu7aEmjNpTmnQMHv73Ug=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <utmuq0$3ncb0$5@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3930

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).

> 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)!
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).