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: Every D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own
 line 06 and halt
Date: Mon, 20 May 2024 22:39:21 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v2h1gp$1kiah$14@i2pn2.org>
References: <v0k4jc$laej$1@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$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v2h0nm$d87m$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 21 May 2024 02:39:21 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1722705"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v2h0nm$d87m$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 10827
Lines: 228

On 5/20/24 10:25 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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.

And how did your H "Correctly" simulate the call to H?

> 
> This is the only post about this subject that I will respond
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========