Path: ...!news.nobody.at!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 an abort decider be defined that cannot be fooled by any
 pathological input?
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2024 21:53:46 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 215
Message-ID: <uttdbr$1evji$1@dont-email.me>
References: <utoboa$5f03$1@dont-email.me> <utopik$89n1$1@dont-email.me>
 <uts4hn$15g1s$2@dont-email.me> <uts6bp$15q0v$1@dont-email.me>
 <uts79p$164d3$2@dont-email.me> <uts819$1682g$1@dont-email.me>
 <utschj$17h7c$1@dont-email.me> <utt2f8$32apl$1@i2pn2.org>
 <utt3qt$1cuoq$1@dont-email.me> <utt4h2$32apl$3@i2pn2.org>
 <utt5bv$1d2ks$2@dont-email.me> <utt5v2$32apk$11@i2pn2.org>
 <utt7e1$1dpmh$1@dont-email.me> <utt8fg$32apl$6@i2pn2.org>
 <utt8oq$1dv6f$2@dont-email.me> <uttank$32apk$12@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 03:53:47 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b02d0a9d754c59878ed2d7beef0f0dc1";
	logging-data="1539698"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18sQDXlTIExkk8gFPrfoydP"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:IxMabIcDsvFL6LQSQKYk4QwygyI=
In-Reply-To: <uttank$32apk$12@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 10012

On 3/25/2024 9:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/25/24 9:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/25/2024 8:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/25/24 9:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/25/2024 7:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 3/25/24 8:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/25/2024 7:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/25/24 8:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/25/2024 6:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/25/24 1:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/25/2024 11:16 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Op 25.mrt.2024 om 17:04 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/25/2024 10:48 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 25.mrt.2024 om 16:17 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Two is not many, considering that with Google for any 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> invalid idea it is easy to find a several people with a 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> master degree supporting it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Exactly what are you software engineering skills?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have been professionally programming since 1986 in 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> several languages. (Non professionally I started 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> programming in 1975). Since about 1990 I programmed in C 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and since about 2000 in C++.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have been a professional C++ software engineer since Y2K.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm sorry to hear that olcott has been so smart, but now he 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> does not even sees what even a beginner sees.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Can D correctly simulated by H terminate normally?
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 }
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *Execution Trace*
>>>>>>>>>>>> Line 11: main() invokes H(D,D);
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *keeps repeating* (unless aborted)
>>>>>>>>>>>> Line 03: simulated D(D) invokes simulated H(D,D) that 
>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates D(D)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Even a beginner sees that, if the H that aborts is chosen, 
>>>>>>>>>>> simulated H(D,D) aborts and returns false (unless aborted). 
>>>>>>>>>>> So simulated D halts (unless aborted).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I am estimating that you must be fibbing about your 
>>>>>>>>>> programming skill.
>>>>>>>>>> The D simulated by any implementation of H (that aborts or 
>>>>>>>>>> does not
>>>>>>>>>> abort its simulation) shown above cannot possibly reach its 
>>>>>>>>>> own line 04
>>>>>>>>>> also shown above.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But that isn't the question.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *That <is> the abort decision question*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But you agreed that a correct abort decider oly NEEDS to abort 
>>>>>>> its simulation if the correct simulation by a pure correct 
>>>>>>> simulator of the input given to H (which doesn't change, so for 
>>>>>>> this case, still calls that original H) will never reach a final 
>>>>>>> state.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The question is does that machine described by the input Halt 
>>>>>>>>> when run, or, alternatively, does its correct simulation (not 
>>>>>>>>> just by H) run forever (and thus needs to be aborted)?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since you know that H(D,D) must abort its simulation to prevent its
>>>>>>>> own infinite execution I don't understand why you would lie 
>>>>>>>> about it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But an H that doesn't abort and an H that does abort are looking 
>>>>>>> at different inputs "D", since you agree that the behavior of D 
>>>>>>> changes based on the H that it is using.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not at all. Of the infinite set of every possible implementation of
>>>>>> H where H(D,D) simulates its input everyone that chose to abort is
>>>>>> necessarily correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't understand why you persist in lying about this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I really want to get on to the next step and see if any input can
>>>>>>>> fool an abort decider into making the wrong abort decision.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But you need to get this step right first.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Perhaps you already know that you are not up to this challenge?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, it seems that YOU are not up to it, as you can't seem to 
>>>>>>> understand the error that you are making.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You keep on lying to yourself about what your requirements are.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am not the one that keeps using the strawman deception to change
>>>>>> the subject away from H(D,D) an abort decider for the above D.
>>>>>
>>>>> Neither am I.
>>>>>
>>>>> YOU agreed that the criteria for an abort decider is only CORRECT 
>>>>> if a CORRECT simulation of the exact input given to H(D,D) (i.e 
>>>>> UTM(D,D) ) does not halt, where D still calls that H(D,D)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I never agreed to that.
>>>
>>> Yes you did:

*You just admitted to lying abut this* (see below).

>>>
>>> On 3/17/24 6:11 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>  > On 3/17/2024 12:22 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========