Path: ...!news.misty.com!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: Tue, 21 May 2024 08:03:41 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v2i2it$1kiag$2@i2pn2.org>
References: <v0k4jc$laej$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> <v2h1gp$1kiah$14@i2pn2.org>
 <v2harp$ehmg$5@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 21 May 2024 12:03:41 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1722704"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v2harp$ehmg$5@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 10994
Lines: 234

On 5/21/24 1:18 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/20/2024 9:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> 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?
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========