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: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 13:02:07 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <uu6s6f$3eioh$7@i2pn2.org>
References: <utlf69$39fl1$1@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> <uu59ta$3ca7j$5@i2pn2.org>
 <uu5ac9$3ubje$3@dont-email.me> <uu6epi$3dq4u$6@i2pn2.org>
 <uu6mee$bsn3$5@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 17:02:08 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3623697"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <uu6mee$bsn3$5@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 16272
Lines: 330

On 3/29/24 11:23 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/29/2024 8:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/28/24 10:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/28/2024 9:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========