Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2024 09:32:04 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 195
Message-ID: <v0j295$dmbi$1@dont-email.me>
References: <uvq0sg$21m7a$1@dont-email.me> <uvs70t$1h01f$1@i2pn2.org>
 <uvsgcl$2i80k$1@dont-email.me> <uvsj4v$1h01e$1@i2pn2.org>
 <uvubo2$34nh3$1@dont-email.me> <uvvsap$3i5q8$1@dont-email.me>
 <v00mf6$3nu0r$1@dont-email.me> <v02gu5$6quf$1@dont-email.me>
 <v038om$bitp$2@dont-email.me> <v05b0k$sivu$1@dont-email.me>
 <v05r5e$vvml$2@dont-email.me> <v05vl4$1165d$1@dont-email.me>
 <v0679k$12sq2$1@dont-email.me> <v07r2j$1h57l$1@dont-email.me>
 <v08gn4$1lpta$2@dont-email.me> <v0ag7u$27jkb$1@dont-email.me>
 <v0b8np$2d4ja$1@dont-email.me> <v0c317$2538n$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v0c7fn$2k0tc$1@dont-email.me> <v0d3h1$2t938$1@dont-email.me>
 <v0doho$31mkn$2@dont-email.me> <v0forg$3j1dk$1@dont-email.me>
 <v0ghhm$3oudg$2@dont-email.me> <v0gk5q$2a19r$5@i2pn2.org>
 <v0gmrt$3qd6i$1@dont-email.me> <v0hfab$3vjo8$1@dont-email.me>
 <v0hgn3$2a19s$7@i2pn2.org> <v0hl90$4ehj$1@dont-email.me>
 <v0hna7$2a19s$8@i2pn2.org> <v0hpt4$59oq$1@dont-email.me>
 <v0hsd2$2a19s$9@i2pn2.org> <v0i2oh$6orp$2@dont-email.me>
 <v0iog7$2csj2$1@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2024 16:32:06 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="94abfe76188a905a3abc96eb60b79e1c";
	logging-data="448882"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18IdTb0zktPxcSHD7IvAdKZ"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:fBcXO2rJkn2TvSQg8a6YDk9U8M8=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v0iog7$2csj2$1@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 9801

On 4/27/2024 6:45 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 4/27/24 1:34 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/26/2024 10:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 4/26/24 11:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/26/2024 9:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 4/26/24 9:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/26/2024 7:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/26/24 8:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/26/2024 12:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/26/2024 11:19 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/26/24 11:34 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/26/2024 3:32 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-25 14:15:20 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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   D(D);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 12 }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That H(D,D) must report on the behavior of its caller is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> one that is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> What H(D,D) must report is independet of what procedure (if 
>>>>>>>>>>>> any)
>>>>>>>>>>>> calls it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thus when H(D,D) correctly reports that its input D(D) cannot 
>>>>>>>>>>> possibly
>>>>>>>>>>> reach its own line 6 and halt no matter what H does then H 
>>>>>>>>>>> can abort its
>>>>>>>>>>> input and report that its input D(D) does not halt.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But since the program D(D) DOES reach its own line 6 when run, 
>>>>>>>>>> because H aborts its simulation and return 0 (since that is 
>>>>>>>>>> what you say this H will do), your statement is PROVEN TO BE A 
>>>>>>>>>> LIE, and you "logic" just a collection of contradictions.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own line 06 thus 
>>>>>>>>> when we do
>>>>>>>>> not use the strawman deception to refer to a different D then 
>>>>>>>>> we know
>>>>>>>>> that D simulated by H never halts.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that the D(D) executed in main does halt is none of H's
>>>>>>>>>>> business because H is not allowed to report on the behavior 
>>>>>>>>>>> of its
>>>>>>>>>>> caller.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In other words, H doesn't need to report on the Behavior of 
>>>>>>>>>> the Program described by its input because it isn't actually a 
>>>>>>>>>> Halt Decider, because you are just a LIAR.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Anyone knowing the theory of computation knows that H is not 
>>>>>>>>> allowed to
>>>>>>>>> report on the behavior of its caller.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In computability theory and computational complexity theory, an
>>>>>>>>> undecidable problem is a decision problem for which it is 
>>>>>>>>> proved to be
>>>>>>>>> impossible to construct an algorithm that always leads to a 
>>>>>>>>> correct yes-
>>>>>>>>> or-no answer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undecidable_problem
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The behavior of the simulated D(D) before H aborts its 
>>>>>>>>> simulation is
>>>>>>>>> different than the behavior of the executed D(D) after H has 
>>>>>>>>> aborted
>>>>>>>>> its simulation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Every time that a simulated input would never stop running unless
>>>>>>>>> aborted the simulating termination analyzer must abort this 
>>>>>>>>> simulation
>>>>>>>>> to prevent its own infinite execution.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> H(D,D) is a case of this H1(D,D) is not a case of this even though
>>>>>>>>> the only difference between H and H1 is that D calls H and D does
>>>>>>>>> not call H1.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> D simulated by H would never stop running unless aborted and 
>>>>>>>>> cannot
>>>>>>>>> possibly reach its own line 06 and halt no matter what H does.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thus whenever we do not use the strawman deception to refer to a
>>>>>>>>> different D we know that D simulated by H specifies a non-halting
>>>>>>>>> sequence of configurations to H.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *This might be a more succinct way of summing that up*
>>>>>>>> When you understand that D simulated by H cannot possibly reach 
>>>>>>>> past its own line 03 (thus cannot possibly halt) no matter what 
>>>>>>>> H does and
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But since H does whatever H does, if H aborts and returns 0, the 
>>>>>>> the direct execution of D, which is what actually matters, DOES 
>>>>>>> get to that point.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is another much less useful way to make a universally correct
>>>>>> termination analyzer:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> int H(ptr x, ptr y)
>>>>>> {
>>>>>>    printf("The input program does whatever it does!\n");
>>>>>>    return 777; // code for it does what it does
>>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> But that doesn't make H answer the question.
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess you don't understand what I am saying.
>>>>>
>>>>> You said "no matter what H does", but that is a MEANINGLESS 
>>>>> statement, because H will do what H is programmed to do, so we 
>>>>> don't need to look at other behavior, but just the behavior that H ac
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It can be verified through ordinary software engineering that D(D)
>>>>>> simulated H cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, but that is just a lying RED HERRING, as the question isn't 
>>>>> about what H's simulation of the input does, but what the program 
>>>>> the input actually represents does when run.
>>>>>
>>>>> YOu are just effectively admitting that you are nothing but a 
>>>>> stupid liar that doesn't know what he is talking about.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It can be verified through computer science that this means that 
>>>>>> D(D) simulated H by never reaches its own final state and halts 
>>>>>> whether
>>>>>> H aborts its simulation or not.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which, since this H DOES abort its simulation is trying to 
>>>>> introduce a red herring.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> D(D) simulated by H never halts
>>>> D(D) simulated by H never halts
>>>> D(D) simulated by H never halts
>>>> D(D) simulated by H never halts
>>>> D(D) simulated by H never halts
>>>
>>> STRAWMAN
>>
>> A method that I used very effectively on another forum and made much
>> progress with is utterly insisting that we cannot move on to any
>> additional point until we have 100% complete mutual agreement on
>> the current point.
>>
>> (1) If we (possibly falsely assume) that H(D,D) is supposed to report
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========