Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.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: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2024 18:45:35 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v0jv6f$2djof$4@i2pn2.org>
References: <uvq0sg$21m7a$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$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v0j295$dmbi$1@dont-email.me> <v0jbgf$2djoe$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v0jdul$g54u$2@dont-email.me> <v0jf1q$2djof$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v0jffn$gimt$1@dont-email.me> <v0jgro$2djoe$4@i2pn2.org>
 <v0jhhl$h4i2$1@dont-email.me> <v0jihq$2djoe$5@i2pn2.org>
 <v0jkqe$hv4h$1@dont-email.me> <v0jqei$2djoe$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v0jr41$javt$1@dont-email.me> <v0jrm4$2djof$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v0jsm9$jn4r$1@dont-email.me> <v0jtkp$2djoe$7@i2pn2.org>
 <v0ju85$k214$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2024 22:45:35 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2543375"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v0ju85$k214$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5325
Lines: 86

On 4/27/24 6:29 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/27/2024 5:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 4/27/24 6:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/27/2024 4:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 4/27/24 5:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/27/2024 4:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/27/24 3:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> Simulating termination analyzer H determines whether or not
>>>>>>> D(D) simulated by H can possibly reach its final state at its
>>>>>>> own line 06 and halt whether or not H aborts its simulation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We can resolve exactly what I mean by this as an aspect of
>>>>>>> staying on this one point. We cannot move on to the slightest
>>>>>>> trace of any nuance of any other point until AFTER we have
>>>>>>> 100% complete mutual agreement on this point.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (a) It is a verified fact that D(D) simulated by H cannot
>>>>>>> possibly reach past line 03 of D(D) simulated by H whether H
>>>>>>> aborts its simulation or not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When we have 100% perfect mutual agreement on that point
>>>>>>> then we can move on to the next aspect of the point of the
>>>>>>> paragraph.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem is you don't seem to have a proper definition for a 
>>>>>> "program", as the input seems to change behavior as you analyize 
>>>>>> different options for what "different" H's might do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It seems that neither your D or your H actual meet the normal 
>>>>>> definition of what a "Program" is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I never even use the word "program"
>>>>> *H and D are 100% completely specified right here*
>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, what is the defined "class" of the input to a Termination Analyzer.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I am only talking about H and D. You always "read things in"
>>> to what I say that I never said.
>>
>> So, what are "H" and "D", are they "Programs" per the standard 
>> definitions, or something else that you are stipulating?
>>
> 
> They are 100% completely defined in the complete source-code
> that I just linked above.

So, if H is "defined" by its source code, then it can only do one thing, 
and thus your criteria of talking about "whether it aborts its 
simulation or not" is a MEANINGLESS Statement.

And, if it can only have ONE input, it isn't really a "Decider".

> 
>> You don't seem to understand the problems with how you are treating 
>> them, because you just fail to understand the meaning of the words.
>>
> 
> No words to it 100% complete source code.

In other words, you are just admitting that your system is a TOY and 
isn't actually solving a "Problem", at the "Problem statement" is asking 
about trying to write a program H that has been specified to answer 
about a specific input that is specified, based on a criteria that talks 
about some other Hs that can't actually exist.

You REALLY don't understand what you are doing, do you.

> 
>>>
>>>> The input to a Halt Decider is (in the specific case, where the 
>>>> decider is itself a Turing Machine) a description of a Turing 
>>>> Machine and its input tape, or in the more general case, the 
>>>> description of a Program and its input.
>>>>
>>>> If your "Replacement" for a Halt Decider (your Termination Analyzer) 
>>>> doesn't take the same class of thing as an input, then it isn't much 
>>>> of a replacement, and your whole scheme falls apart.
>>>
>>
>