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: Categorically exhaustive reasoning applied to the decision to
 abort
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2024 14:41:59 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 140
Message-ID: <uu1sq7$31c5f$3@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>
 <uu1slv$31dht$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 19:41:59 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="fa63db01727c3acc7401a5d56fb7345e";
	logging-data="3190959"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+PrPHwA0v1sJgI6q98Ukfw"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:mqzisA1KbyqjCcwoCrtjprXfNDs=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <uu1slv$31dht$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 6909

On 3/27/2024 2:39 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> 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?
> 

Oh you are just flat out lying, I get it.

>>
>>> 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.
>>
> 
> 

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