Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!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: Every D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own
 line 06 and halt
Date: Mon, 20 May 2024 21:25:57 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 199
Message-ID: <v2h0nm$d87m$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v0k4jc$laej$1@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>
 <v2efle$3q0ko$1@dont-email.me> <v2fbtp$1g2n8$10@i2pn2.org>
 <v2g390$3ugq$6@dont-email.me> <v2grhq$1kiah$6@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 21 May 2024 04:25:59 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2f5f52f96f067406075e702eab09af4a";
	logging-data="434422"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX186gIenkwkbrNmva1pCTuCw"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:eKzpUKhYACsPeOoc636onP6t5Jk=
In-Reply-To: <v2grhq$1kiah$6@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 9551

On 5/20/2024 7:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/20/24 2:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/20/2024 6:24 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/19/24 11:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> But you can't PRECISELY define the category, or what you want to 
>>> reason about, so your logic is worthless as it is baseless.
>>>
>>
>> *POINT TO ANY ACTUAL MISTAKE OR AMBIGUITY WITH THIS VERSION*
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Execution Trace
>> Line 11: main() invokes H(D,D);
>>
>> keeps repeating (unless aborted)
>> Line 01:
>> Line 02:
>> Line 03: simulated D(D) invokes simulated H(D,D) that simulates D(D)
>>
>> Simulation invariant:
>> D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.
>>
>> For every H/D pair of the above template D correctly simulated by pure 
>> function (thus computable function) H cannot possibly reach its own 
>> final state at line 06 and halt.
>>
> 
> Which thus doesn't correct simulate the call to H 

*Counter-factual, try again*
We are not talking about any of your misconceptions the term:
"simulate" is expressly defined.

This is the only post about this subject that I will respond
to from you. I have to paint half of my house and empty my
garage within about a week.

If you can find some source that conclusively proves that
not all pure functions are computable functions I would like
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========