Path: ...!news.misty.com!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: Mon, 25 Mar 2024 19:44:14 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <utt28e$32apk$8@i2pn2.org>
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> <utnkh0$3t2rs$2@dont-email.me>
 <utsehd$17q02$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2024 23:44:14 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3222324"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <utsehd$17q02$3@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 7303
Lines: 152

On 3/25/24 2:07 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/23/2024 5:19 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 23/03/24 20:26, olcott wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> Everyone with sufficient programming skill can see that H is not 
>> defined as part of program D, and if you define H inside program D, 
>> then it might be possible to tell whether it reaches line 06 or not.
> 
> *It is stipulated that H must correctly simulate 1 to ∞ steps of D*
> Every other detail about H is unspecified because it is irrelevant.


Then your stipulation is just ILLOGICAL, as a given H can only do one thing.


Garbage In, Garbage Out, and proof is shown to come from an unsound mine.

> 
> Of all of the elements of the set of H(D,D) where H simulates its
> input there are matched pairs of otherwise identical elements that
> only differ by whether they abort their simulation or not.

Which are DIFFERENGT.

I guess you are just claiming that we can consider a cat to be a 10 
story office building.

> 
> The half of these that don't abort are incorrect because all deciders
> must halt. This makes the other half correct about the abort/no abort
> decision.
> 
> 
Nope, proves you to be a pathological lying idiot.