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 21:48:10 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 133
Message-ID: <uu20mb$328jc$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>
 <uu1slv$31dht$1@dont-email.me> <uu1sq7$31c5f$3@dont-email.me>
 <uu1u0q$31mm4$3@dont-email.me> <uu1v3k$31r8p$3@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 20:48:11 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3c03feda3a8cb3b751af5e283ec142d7";
	logging-data="3220076"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19wtdc8MQcFAK1bb4uuRn5/"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:0bPVco9Y/HKz3zoVtWvNFzBMz14=
In-Reply-To: <uu1v3k$31r8p$3@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 7203

Op 27.mrt.2024 om 21:21 schreef olcott:
> On 3/27/2024 3:02 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 27.mrt.2024 om 20:41 schreef olcott:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Clearly, olcott has no rebuttal.
>> But soon he will again say that his mistakes were never shown to him.
> 
> I say that 2 + 3 = 5 and you say no that it not right
> 2 + 3 = "a squashed banana", prove that I am wrong.
> 
Talking nonsense is no rebuttal.