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 an abort decider be defined that cannot be fooled by any
 pathological input?
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2024 19:44:18 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <utt28i$32apk$10@i2pn2.org>
References: <utoboa$5f03$1@dont-email.me> <utopik$89n1$1@dont-email.me>
 <uts4hn$15g1s$2@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 23:44:18 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3222324"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <uts4hn$15g1s$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3112
Lines: 58

On 3/25/24 11:17 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/24/2024 3:51 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 24.mrt.2024 om 05:55 schreef olcott:
>>> Can an abort decider be defined that cannot be fooled by any 
>>> pathological input?
>>>
>>> 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 }
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> No. The other, aborting, half is just wrong, because it aborts when it 
>> is not needed. So, the half that aborts is wrong and it may be argued 
>> that it is better to not abort something that halts on its own and that 
> 
> At least two software engineers with masters degrees in computer science
> disagree. Exactly what are you software engineering skills? I have been
> a professional C++ software engineer since Y2K.

NEWBIE.

I've been paid to produce software since 1975. (and programming as a 
hobby before that)

I have also studied some Computation Theory and have pointed out the 
errors in those two "software engineers with master degrees in computar 
science" arguements based on DEFINITION in Computation Theory, that I 
suspect they never actually studied.

> 
>> therefore not responding is better than responding with a wrong 
>> answer. So, both halves are wrong, but the half that aborts is more 
>> wrong. It gives the wrong answer. The other half is also wrong, but it 
>> does not give a wrong answer, but does not respond.
>>
>>>
>>> I don't think an abort decider can be fooled by a pathological input.
>>>
>> I am very sorry to hear that.
>>
>>
>