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: No one can correctly refute that simulating abort decider A(D,D)
 is correct
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2024 22:09:14 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 112
Message-ID: <uu2n0q$37bas$4@dont-email.me>
References: <uu1qje$3106v$1@dont-email.me> <uu1tmp$31mm4$2@dont-email.me>
 <uu1ufg$31r8p$1@dont-email.me> <uu2eob$374vo$2@i2pn2.org>
 <uu2g1k$360p2$2@dont-email.me> <uu2hpe$374vo$11@i2pn2.org>
 <uu2jp1$36okm$2@dont-email.me> <uu2lfu$374vo$15@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 03:09:17 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="481a4c8f2cd1b5f60f5d8b2395b87ce0";
	logging-data="3386716"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX191CXy7HDuM8I3uxxct1aAV"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:1csXy4Hb9XshV5FRJ9Eye8MC2IY=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <uu2lfu$374vo$15@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 5288

On 3/27/2024 9:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/27/24 10:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/27/2024 8:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/27/24 9:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/27/2024 7:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> 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, 
>>>>
>>>> *That is the behavior that an abort decider must report on*
>>>> *That is the behavior that an abort decider must report on*
>>>> *That is the behavior that an abort decider must report on*
>>>>
>>>> It is not possible to CORRECTLY simulate a B to the point of seeing
>>>> an A return to it because A calls B in recursive simulation.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nope, it IS possible to simulate any B to the point of seeing A return, 
>>
>> It is impossible for A(B,B) to simulate its input such that any
>> A ever returns to any B simulated by A because B calls A in recursive
>> simulation.
>>
> 
> And if the "Definition" of the answer is based on it "Correctly 
> Simulating its input", which it can not do, then you have a problem with 
> your definitions.
> 

Every A(B,B) simulates its input until it sees the same thing
that you an I have seen for two years.

> Your problem is you keep on forgetting that at any given time and 
> example, A is a SPECIFIC program, with SPECIFIC behavior and it will 
> either simulate and not abort and not answer, or abort and not show what 
> its input does.

I never forget that.
I KNOW THAT IRRELEVANT DIFFERENCES ARE IRRELEVANT
I KNOW THAT IRRELEVANT DIFFERENCES ARE IRRELEVANT
I KNOW THAT IRRELEVANT DIFFERENCES ARE IRRELEVANT

> 
> We can use ANOTHER simulator (perhaps a different version of A, and give 
> it THIS B, connect with that original A, and not itself) to see the 
> right answer.
> 

Every H(D,D) that simulates its input and does not abort
that simulation is wrong.

Every H(D,D) that simulates its input and does abort
that simulation is correct about this abort decision.

> If you can't do that, then you Computation system is just too weak to be 
> of any interest.
> 
> Yes, you may be able to establish what you want to establish, but only 
> by admittng that you system is FAR from being "Turing Complete", and 

The same thing works for the Linz H but all the time that
you ridiculously persistently deny easily verified facts
I cannot trust you with that additional complexity.

You must totally accept that H(D,D) is a correct abort decider
for its input before we can move on.

> thus not any where NEAR being a usable replacement for the actual 
> Computation Theory and its Halting Question.

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