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: Can any pathological input thwart a simulating abort decider?
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2024 21:55:17 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 400
Message-ID: <uu2m6n$37bas$1@dont-email.me>
References: <utkjd0$335kr$1@dont-email.me> <utm7u7$3iaut$1@dont-email.me>
 <utmn5h$3lnmi$5@dont-email.me> <utmppq$3mgs3$1@dont-email.me>
 <utmuq0$3ncb0$5@dont-email.me> <utn05t$3o86u$2@dont-email.me>
 <utn1ed$3od3s$2@dont-email.me> <utn8mb$3q1mb$2@dont-email.me>
 <utnadr$3ql3o$2@dont-email.me> <utnkh0$3t2rs$2@dont-email.me>
 <utsehd$17q02$3@dont-email.me> <utt28e$32apk$8@i2pn2.org>
 <utt4fk$1d2ks$1@dont-email.me> <utt50h$32apl$4@i2pn2.org>
 <utt5ot$1dbci$1@dont-email.me> <utt6de$32apl$5@i2pn2.org>
 <utt8c1$1dv6f$1@dont-email.me> <uttafr$32apl$7@i2pn2.org>
 <uttbbb$1eg0e$1@dont-email.me> <uttcq9$32apk$13@i2pn2.org>
 <uttdjg$1evla$1@dont-email.me> <utte3r$32apk$16@i2pn2.org>
 <uttfon$1j1tv$2@dont-email.me> <utuc5f$33t23$1@i2pn2.org>
 <utuome$1sn8a$1@dont-email.me> <utvvkt$35q21$5@i2pn2.org>
 <uu04sc$2jvdi$3@dont-email.me> <uu2ep3$374vo$5@i2pn2.org>
 <uu2ikh$36cl6$3@dont-email.me> <uu2k6i$374vo$13@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2024 02:55:20 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="481a4c8f2cd1b5f60f5d8b2395b87ce0";
	logging-data="3386716"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/+7LqoQr5nkdchznblliSv"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:541DaQdPiqreq/S06nq4p8sD7IU=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <uu2k6i$374vo$13@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 16963

On 3/27/2024 9:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/27/24 9:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/27/2024 7:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/26/24 11:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/26/2024 9:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 3/26/24 11:13 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/26/2024 6:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/25/24 11:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/25/2024 10:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/25/24 10:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I am saying that H/D pairs where H simulates D that this D 
>>>>>>>>>> right here
>>>>>>>>>> not some other D somewhere else never reaches its own line 06.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Right. But that doesn't prove that the D is non-halting of H 
>>>>>>>>> gives up on its simulation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You always use the strawman deception on this.
>>>>>>>> WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ABORT DECIDERS
>>>>>>>> WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ABORT DECIDERS
>>>>>>>> WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ABORT DECIDERS
>>>>>>>> WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ABORT DECIDERS
>>>>>>>> WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ABORT DECIDERS
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And you have agreed that an "Abort Deciders" will decide based on 
>>>>>>> if THIS DECIDER needs to abort THIS INPUT,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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 }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This decider must abort this input when-so-ever this H/D pair is in
>>>>>> the set of H/D pairs where H simulates its input and D is defined as
>>>>>> specified above.
>>>>>
>>>>> H must do what H does.
>>>>>
>>>>> First note, you have strayed from the actual definiton of the 
>>>>> problem, (andthus are LYING about following it) because the 
>>>>> specific D was DEFINED to use a specific COPY of the one decider it 
>>>>> was designed to refute.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your D ends up failing to even be a Computation, (when you limit 
>>>>> the desciption of D to NOT include H) because its behavior is NOT 
>>>>> fully defined.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, any H that doesn't happen to abort its simulation is not a 
>>>>> correct decider because it will fail to decide.
>>>>>
>>>>> That DOESN'T mean that an H that does abort is correct, as every 
>>>>> different H that is called by D creates a different behavior for D, 
>>>>> and in effect, creates a "new" D, even though its description (by 
>>>>> your stipulation) is the same, but that is because you have created 
>>>>> a non-computation input, and for those, to determine there 
>>>>> behavior, we need to include the appropriate extra "hidden" 
>>>>> information, which in this case is the code of H.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, if H does abort and return 0, then it is clear that that makes 
>>>>> a D(D) that will halt, as can be proved by having main call 
>>>>> UTM(D,D) with that D still refering to that original H (which you 
>>>>> keep on trying to lie about not being able to do).
>>>>>
>>>>> Sincd that simulation will reach an end, then it is shown that 
>>>>> these Hs don't actually NEED to abort, even though (or because of 
>>>>> the fact) they do.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can claim this make this an invalid question, and I would 
>>>>> agree, because your D was built wrong. Build D the RIGHT way, with 
>>>>> its own copy of H (that is fixed to be the H you finally decide on, 
>>>>> and doesn't change during your argument) then the question is 
>>>>> valid, and the H that D was built on is clearly wrong, and any 
>>>>> other decider could have its own "pathelogical" input defined that 
>>>>> makes IT wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  based on if an actual CORRECT SIMULATION of THIS INPUT will run 
>>>>>>> forever or Halt.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are stuck with that definition if you want your "abort 
>>>>>>> deciders" to be at all related to "Halt Deciders", which since 
>>>>>>> you continue to refer to the Halting problem proofs, you do, you 
>>>>>>> need to use THAT definition.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any definition based on looking at the behavior of some other 
>>>>>>> machine and input, is just illogical, but then, you have shown 
>>>>>>> that you thinking goes to illogical ideas.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By that same reasoning cats have no common attributes and some cats
>>>>>> might bark and some cats might fly because not all cats are exactly
>>>>>> the same.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not *NO* common attributes, but have some differences, so if you 
>>>>> thing being looked at varies, then not all cat are the same.
>>>>>
>>>>> For instance, not all cats are black.
>>>>>
>>>>> You just don't seem to understand the nature of "Categories"
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If that was all that was needed, ALL inputs could be correctly 
>>>>>>>>> decided as non-halting.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ABORT DECIDERS
>>>>>>>> WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ABORT DECIDERS
>>>>>>>> WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ABORT DECIDERS
>>>>>>>> WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ABORT DECIDERS
>>>>>>>> WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ABORT DECIDERS
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Right, based on the actual NEED for THIS decider to abort for 
>>>>>>> this exact input.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This decider must abort this input when-so-ever this H/D pair is in
>>>>>> the set of H/D pairs where H simulates its input and D is defined as
>>>>>> specified above.
>>>>>
>>>>> It must abort to be a decider.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thst doesn't mean that if it does abort, it knows the right answer 
>>>>> to the question about the input halting (or needing to be aborted).
>>>>>
>>>>> They are NOT the same criteria,
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since, for our H(D,D) that is programmed to abort and return 0, 
>>>>>>> the D(D) 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I never said that, about abort deciders I only said that H 
>>>>>> simulates D.
>>>>>> I never said that, about abort deciders I only said that H 
>>>>>> simulates D.
>>>>>> I never said that, about abort deciders I only said that H 
>>>>>> simulates D.
>>>>>> I never said that, about abort deciders I only said that H 
>>>>>> simulates D.
>>>>>> I never said that, about abort deciders I only said that H 
>>>>>> simulates D.
>>>>>> I never said that, about abort deciders I only said that H 
>>>>>> simulates D.
>>>>>> I never said that, about abort deciders I only said that H 
>>>>>> simulates D.
>>>>>> I never said that, about abort deciders I only said that H 
>>>>>> simulates D.
>>>>>> I never said that, about abort deciders I only said that H 
>>>>>> simulates D.
>>>>>> I never said that, about abort deciders I only said that H 
>>>>>> simulates D.
>>>>>> I never said that, about abort deciders I only said that H 
>>>>>> simulates D.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========