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: Categorically exhaustive reasoning applied to the decision to
 abort
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2024 22:43:54 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <uu59ta$3ca7j$5@i2pn2.org>
References: <utlf69$39fl1$1@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> <uu2eoi$374vo$4@i2pn2.org>
 <uu2i42$36cl6$2@dont-email.me> <uu2ihs$374vn$2@i2pn2.org>
 <uu2kuk$3707c$2@dont-email.me> <uu2m74$374vo$17@i2pn2.org>
 <uu2mad$37bas$2@dont-email.me> <uu2n68$374vn$6@i2pn2.org>
 <uu2ng9$37bas$6@dont-email.me> <uu2o3b$374vn$10@i2pn2.org>
 <uu2p5e$37bas$10@dont-email.me> <uu3lal$3ajo1$3@i2pn2.org>
 <uu41m4$3laua$1@dont-email.me> <uu50n9$3ca7i$8@i2pn2.org>
 <uu56ta$3tt5t$5@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 02:43:54 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3549427"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <uu56ta$3tt5t$5@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 16074
Lines: 353

On 3/28/24 9:52 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/28/2024 7:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/28/24 11:17 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/28/2024 6:46 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/27/24 11:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/27/2024 10:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/27/24 11:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/27/2024 10:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/27/24 10:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2024 9:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/24 10:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2024 8:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/24 9:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2024 7:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/24 3:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But that statement only hold in a world where the only 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulator is H, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes that has always been the freaking point that you deep 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> dodging to run out the clock of my rebuttals.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Which isn't the world you claim to be in, that of 
>>>>>>>>>>>> COMPUTASTION THEORY.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If you want to talk about a universe with only two "sets" of 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Programs, H and D, then SAY SO, and admit that you are 
>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about something WORTHLESS.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and a D that magically changes (and thus not actually a 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valid model)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *D IS ALWAYS THESE MACHINE CODE BYTES* 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========