Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott2@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Can any pathological input thwart a simulating abort decider?
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2024 20:28:31 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 194
Message-ID: <utt8c1$1dv6f$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> <utnkh0$3t2rs$2@dont-email.me>
 <utsehd$17q02$3@dont-email.me> <utt28e$32apk$8@i2pn2.org>
 <utt4fk$1d2ks$1@dont-email.me> <utt50h$32apl$4@i2pn2.org>
 <utt5ot$1dbci$1@dont-email.me> <utt6de$32apl$5@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 02:28:33 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b02d0a9d754c59878ed2d7beef0f0dc1";
	logging-data="1506511"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/dqh0HrQxXAqZ02qJZsSaF"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:CkUe9XmnMtz0H9KwzNG5QyuzCAQ=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <utt6de$32apl$5@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 9430

On 3/25/2024 7:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/25/24 8:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/25/2024 7:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/25/24 8:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/25/2024 6:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> None-the-less they all share the common property that they either
>>>> run forever or abort the simulation of their input. All of the other
>>>> differences don't make and damn difference at all.
>>>>
>>>
>>> But that isn't a simple property, so you are creating a FALSE DICHOTOMY.
>>>
>>> All the ones that fail to abort 
>>
>> Are in the set that fail to abort, [set(a)]
>> LEAVING ALL OF THE OTHER ONES IN THE SET THAT ABORTS [set(b)]
>>
>> Instead of the deceptive names of the individual members we can
>> call them set (a) and set (b).
> 
> Fine, and you have shown that we needed to abort all of the simulations 
> of D built on an H in set (a).
> 
> That DOESN'T meen that it was correct to abort the simulation of any of 
> the Ds built from an H from set (b).
> 

By definition every (a) is wrong and every (b) is correct.

>>
>> It is like you are trying to get away with claiming that
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========