Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
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 20:48:11 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <uu2eob$374vo$2@i2pn2.org>
References: <uu1qje$3106v$1@dont-email.me> <uu1tmp$31mm4$2@dont-email.me>
 <uu1ufg$31r8p$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2024 00:48:11 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3380216"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <uu1ufg$31r8p$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4121
Lines: 96

On 3/27/24 4:10 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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)

Which just shows your ignorance as that doesn't define what A actually 
is, or needs to do.

You are just demonstrating that you don't know what you are talking about.

> 
>> 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.

It may not be able to simulate a B to the point of seeing an A return to 
it, but that doesn't mean that the actual behavior of B doesn't have 
that happen.

REALITY is the actual behavior of B.

"FANTASY" is what A sees in its simulation and then extrapolating 
without reason.

REALITY is what matters, not the lies of FANTASY.

> 
>> 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.

But the ACTUAL B does, which is what matters.

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

No, you are lying abort how your idea have ANY connection to actual reality.

> 
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>