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 20:42:32 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 123
Message-ID: <utnbb8$3qsh3$1@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> <utn05t$3o86u$2@dont-email.me>
 <utn1ed$3od3s$2@dont-email.me> <utn8mb$3q1mb$2@dont-email.me>
 <utnadr$3ql3o$2@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 19:42:32 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4209bd87c5b5c0639a331d8fa156f86c";
	logging-data="4026915"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+LMs+E0G79xtJWIFSqwdG1"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:wfQyBdXGnb2vb+dKq6W2DYbJaO8=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <utnadr$3ql3o$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 6133

Op 23.mrt.2024 om 20:26 schreef olcott:
> 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.
> 

Even a beginner can see that this is a verified fact:
H, programmed to return false, also returns false when simulated (unless 
aborted), so D, when correctly simulated, halts (unless aborted).