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: Every D correctly simulated by H cannot possible reach its own line
 06 and halt
Date: Sun, 19 May 2024 22:22:22 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 109
Message-ID: <v2efle$3q0ko$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v0k4jc$laej$1@dont-email.me> <v0lh24$123q3$1@dont-email.me>
 <v0lic7$2g492$3@i2pn2.org> <v0lkas$12q0o$3@dont-email.me>
 <v0loq2$2g493$1@i2pn2.org> <v0lq7d$14579$2@dont-email.me>
 <v0ls98$2g492$7@i2pn2.org> <v0m29q$166o1$1@dont-email.me>
 <v0m37e$2gl1e$1@i2pn2.org> <v0m3v5$16k3h$1@dont-email.me>
 <v0m55t$2gl1f$3@i2pn2.org> <v0m5sn$172p4$1@dont-email.me>
 <v0m7em$2gl1f$5@i2pn2.org> <v0m7tq$17dpv$1@dont-email.me>
 <v0m8g9$2gl1e$6@i2pn2.org> <v0m978$17k7o$3@dont-email.me>
 <v0mko6$2hf3s$2@i2pn2.org> <v0n59h$1h98e$1@dont-email.me>
 <v0o037$2j1tu$3@i2pn2.org> <v0oc65$1q3aq$3@dont-email.me>
 <v0p9ts$2ki5r$6@i2pn2.org> <v0q1rk$2a3u1$1@dont-email.me>
 <v0qkti$2m1nf$1@i2pn2.org> <v0r4a3$2hb7o$6@dont-email.me>
 <v0rsbr$2m1nf$6@i2pn2.org> <v0segm$2v4oq$1@dont-email.me>
 <v0t8o9$2p3ri$2@i2pn2.org> <v0tpjf$3881i$5@dont-email.me>
 <v0ulma$2qov4$1@i2pn2.org> <v2e45j$3kf2k$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2e7up$1g2n9$13@i2pn2.org> <v2edto$3pl2i$2@dont-email.me>
 <v2ef1c$1g2n9$14@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 20 May 2024 05:22:23 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="629f9cefad5d4023792ce8f8ed8d9594";
	logging-data="3998360"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+v8OdGE+7UByeB+Yo3+QKv"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:YMtKo8awGczJA6mg3m9lgZywGoA=
In-Reply-To: <v2ef1c$1g2n9$14@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5902

On 5/19/2024 10:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/19/24 10:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/19/2024 8:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/19/24 8:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/1/2024 7:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> typedef int (*ptr)();  // ptr is pointer to int function
>>>> 00 int H(ptr p, ptr i);
>>>> 01 int D(ptr p)
>>>> 02 {
>>>> 03   int Halt_Status = H(p, p);
>>>> 04   if (Halt_Status)
>>>> 05     HERE: goto HERE;
>>>> 06   return Halt_Status;
>>>> 07 }
>>>> 08
>>>> 09 int main()
>>>> 10 {
>>>> 11   H(D,D);
>>>> 12   return 0;
>>>> 13 }
>>>>
>>>> In the above case a simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly 
>>>> emulates at least one of the x86 instructions of D in the order 
>>>> specified by the x86 instructions of D.
>>>>
>>>> This may include correctly emulating the x86 instructions of H in 
>>>> the order specified by the x86 instructions of H thus calling H(D,D) 
>>>> in recursive simulation.
>>>>
>>>> For every H/D pair of the above template D correctly simulated by
>>>> *pure function* H cannot possibly reach its own final state at
>>>> line 06 and halt.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ok, so adding that H is a pure function, that means that since your 
>>> outer H(D,D) is going to return 0, all logic must be compatible with 
>>> the fact that EVERY call to H(D,D) will also eventually return 0.
>>>
>>>
>>> Remember also, THIS D is defined to call THIS H, that does exactly 
>>> the same as the H that is deciding it.
>>>
>>
>> OK, good.
> 
> Right, so it doesn't matter what any other D does, it matters what THIS 
> D does, and this D calls aths H.
> 
> Remember, you reinstated the Computation model by enforcing Pure Functions.
> 
>>
>>>>
>>>> <snip so that Message ID links to whole message>
>>>> We can use my unique time/date stamp as an alternative.
>>>>
>>>>> Remember, YOU are the one saying you are needing to change the 
>>>>> definition from the classical theory, where we have things well 
>>>>> defined.
>>>>>
>>>>> YOU have decider that H is just whatever C code you want to write 
>>>>> for it, and D is the input proved. (which doesn't actually match 
>>>>> the Linz or Sipser proof, but fairly close).
>>>>>
>>>>> With THAT set of definitions we have a lot of options that break 
>>>>> your incorrectly assumed results.
>>>>>
>>>>> The first method has been discussed here by Flibble. While the 
>>>>> final answer he got to doesn't fit the requirements, the first part 
>>>>> of the method DOES show that it is possible for an H to simulate to 
>>>>> past line 3.
>>>>>
>>>>> THe basic idea is that if H(M,d) finds that its simulation of M(d) 
>>>>> get to a call to H(M,d) then rather that your idea of just saying 
>>>>> it will get stuck and declair the input invalid, since there ARE a 
>>>>> number of possible inputs that there is a "correct" answer that H 
>>>>> can give to 
>>>>
>>>> That D is calling H does not prove recursive simulation.
>>>> That D is calling H with its same parameters does seem
>>>> to prove non-halting recursive simulation.
>>>
>>> Nope. Try to actuall PROVE it.
>>>
>>
>> That is off-topic for this post.
>> All that we need know is that no D simulated by any H
>> ever reaches its own line 06 and halts.
> 
> Nope. Make a claim, you need to prove it.
> 

*In other different post not this one*

I am using categorically exhaustive reasoning that can work
through every possibility that can possibly exist in a feasible
amount of time as long as the category is very very narrow.

Enlarge the category a tiny little bit and then the time
becomes infeasible.

The tiniest little divergence from the title of this
thread and I totally ignore and erase everything else
that you say.

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