Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!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: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 10:36:37 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 126
Message-ID: <utuq25$1t1cc$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> <utu2pk$1n6e7$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 16:36:38 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b02d0a9d754c59878ed2d7beef0f0dc1";
	logging-data="2000268"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19L7N+fMlbqvV4sQUnCX6QX"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:srHO4tOuj2p8OKs3JRLcc0ccVV8=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <utu2pk$1n6e7$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5604

On 3/26/2024 3:59 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 25.mrt.2024 om 18:33 schreef olcott:
>> 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.
> 

> Even beginners see that for the H we are talking about, that aborts and 
> returns false, the only reason that D does not reach line 04 is that it 
> is aborted. So, the abortion was premature and incorrect. The correct 
> simulation of D halts (unless aborted).
> 

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)

*Simulation invariant*
D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.

Prove your own ignorance or deception by trying to find one mistake in 
the above.

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer