Path: ...!news.mixmin.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: No one can correctly refute that simulating abort decider A(D,D)
 is correct
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2024 15:10:24 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 75
Message-ID: <uu1ufg$31r8p$1@dont-email.me>
References: <uu1qje$3106v$1@dont-email.me> <uu1tmp$31mm4$2@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 20:10:24 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="fa63db01727c3acc7401a5d56fb7345e";
	logging-data="3206425"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19ek8dE1RDHBJOTwEDAc6rj"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:jmIazCwlIgun3yzznllNDEbGGM4=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <uu1tmp$31mm4$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3555

On 3/27/2024 2:57 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 27.mrt.2024 om 20:04 schreef olcott:
>> 01 void B(ptr x) // ptr is pointer to void function
>> 02 {
>> 03   A(x, x);
>> 04   return;
>> 05 }
>> 06
>> 07 void main()
>> 08 {
>> 09   A(B,B);
>> 10 }
>>
>> *Execution Trace*
>> Line 09: main() invokes A(B,B);
>>
>> *keeps repeating* (unless aborted)
> That is a premature conclusion when A is not specified. 

*simulating abort decider* A(D,D)
*simulating abort decider* A(D,D)
*simulating abort decider* A(D,D)
*simulating abort decider* A(D,D)

> It holds if A 
> does not halt. If A returns, then B will halt (unless aborted).

If you honestly don't see that no A can possible return to
any simulated B then you lied about your programming skill.
Otherwise you can see this and are lying about it.

> So, the problem of not halting is not in B but in the unspecified A. If 
> A halts, B will halt. If A does not halt, B will not halt.
> Even a beginner will see it.
> 
>> Line 03: simulated B(B) invokes simulated A(B,B) that simulates B(B)
> but not completely, because A aborts the simulation and halts, which 
> makes that B halts too (unless aborted).
> 
>> *Simulation invariant*
>> B correctly simulated by A cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.
> 
> Except if A aborts and halts, because then also B halts (unless aborted).
> 

For every A that simulates B whether any A ever aborts this
simulation or not the simulated B cannot possibly reach its
own line 04 and halt.

You either are lying about this or
lying about your programming skill or
are lying about which B you are referring to.

>>
>> The whole class of every A(B,B) that simulates its input
>> is divided into two sub-classes:
>> (a) A(B,B) that DOES NOT abort its simulation is incorrect
>>      (ABOUT THIS ABORT DECISION)
>>      because it would never halt and all deciders must always halt.
>>
>> (b) A(B,N) that DOES abort its simulation is correct
>>      (ABOUT THIS ABORT DECISION)
>>      because it would halt and all deciders must always halt.
> 
> It would be correct if A would not halt. Only in that case B would not 
> halt and an abort is needed. But not halting and aborting is not 
> possible for the same A, so A is wrong, because it aborts prematurely.
> 
> 
> 

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