Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Categorically exhaustive reasoning applied to the decision to
 abort
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2024 20:39:43 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 131
Message-ID: <uu1slv$31dht$1@dont-email.me>
References: <utlf69$39fl1$1@dont-email.me> <utlff5$3997r$3@dont-email.me>
 <utlgg1$2o1am$20@i2pn2.org> <utlirq$3dsl2$2@dont-email.me>
 <utmo5e$2plc2$8@i2pn2.org> <utmqu6$3msk5$1@dont-email.me>
 <utnmqm$3tjdn$1@dont-email.me> <utnoks$3ttm3$2@dont-email.me>
 <uto0b9$3vihs$2@dont-email.me> <uto2b5$3vtt8$4@dont-email.me>
 <uto3fp$8h3$1@dont-email.me> <uto3qm$4tt$4@dont-email.me>
 <uto4km$fq4$3@dont-email.me> <uto790$4g9n$3@dont-email.me>
 <utpl5g$fgbt$1@dont-email.me> <utsv30$1bgkl$5@dont-email.me>
 <utu2ba$1n6e7$1@dont-email.me> <utumuh$1rsiu$6@dont-email.me>
 <uu0qee$2orpg$1@dont-email.me> <uu19aj$2seum$4@dont-email.me>
 <uu1qt6$31012$1@dont-email.me> <uu1sfv$31c5f$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2024 19:39:44 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3c03feda3a8cb3b751af5e283ec142d7";
	logging-data="3192381"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18lmOdqi2WxjYqr390EQH/C"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:w6neqpYmG53uVWmTjVoY9/WF5MY=
Content-Language: nl
In-Reply-To: <uu1sfv$31c5f$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 6534

Op 27.mrt.2024 om 20:36 schreef olcott:
> On 3/27/2024 2:09 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 27.mrt.2024 om 15:09 schreef olcott:
>>> On 3/27/2024 4:55 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 26.mrt.2024 om 15:43 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 3/26/2024 3:51 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 25.mrt.2024 om 23:50 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>> On 3/24/2024 11:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-03-24 03:39:12 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2024 9:54 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 24/03/24 03:40, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2024 9:34 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/03/24 03:15, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2024 8:40 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/03/24 00:29, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2024 5:58 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 23/03/24 16:02, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) H(D,D) that DOES abort its simulation is correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      (ABOUT THIS ABORT DECISION)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      because it would halt and all deciders must always 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To be a decider it has to give an answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To be a halt decider it has to give an answer that is 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same as whether the direct execution of its input 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would halt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That would entail that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tough shit. That is the requirement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I proved otherwise in the parts you erased.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You proved that the requirement is not actually the 
>>>>>>>>>>>> requirement?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I proved that it cannot be a coherent requirement, it can still
>>>>>>>>>>> be an incoherent requirement. Try and think it through for 
>>>>>>>>>>> yourself.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Every program/input pair either halts some time, or never halts.
>>>>>>>>>> Determining this is a coherent requirement.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That part is coherent.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The part that this determination must be done by a Turing machine
>>>>>>>> using descriptions of the program and input is coherent, too.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Every decider is required by definition to only report on what
>>>>>>> this input specifies.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> int sum(int x, int y){ return x + y; }
>>>>>>> sum(3,4) is not allowed to report on the sum of 5 + 6
>>>>>>> even if you really really believe that it should.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Exactly! Therefore H(D,D), where D is based on H that aborts and 
>>>>>> returns false, so that D halts, should not return a report about 
>>>>>> another D that does not halt, even if you really really believe 
>>>>>> that it should.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is enough information for sum(3,4) to compute the sum of 3+4.
>>>>> There is NOT enough information for sum(3,4) to compute the sum of 
>>>>> 5+6.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is enough information for H1(D,D) to compute Halts(D,D).
>>>>> There is NOT enough information for H(D,D) to compute Halts(D,D).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But it is possible to create a simulating sum decider that aborts 
>>>> sum and returns the sum of 5+6 and then claim that it is right, 
>>>> because it has not enough information to calculate 3+4. It is 
>>>> possible, but wrong.
>>>> The only reason it has not enough information, is that it aborts 
>>>> prematurely. That makes the decision to abort wrong. This holds for 
>>>> H as well.
>>>
>>> Why are you denying reality?
>>
>> Olcott is frustrated, but wrong.
>>
>>>
>>> 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)
>>
>> Wrong. Should be:
>> *will return false* (unless aborted)
> 
> There is no possible way that D simulated by any H ever
> returns false whether its simulation has been aborted or not.
> Are you fibbing about your programming  skill?

Why denying easily verified facts?

> 
>> Line 03: simulated D(D) invokes simulated H(D,D) that aborts and 
>> returns false. So D will continue with line 04 (ubnless aborted)
>> Why denying verified facts?
>> D is the D that calls the H that aborts and returns false. That H is 
>> wrong is no reason to assume that D calls another H that keeps 
>> simulating.
>>
>>>
>>> *Simulation invariant*
>>> D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.
>>>
>>
>> Proven wrong.
>