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: No decider is allowed to report on the behavior of the
 computation that itself is contained within
Date: Wed, 22 May 2024 22:38:02 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v2ma6a$1qo0t$5@i2pn2.org>
References: <EOydnaeszcdfHS__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <PtvsK.300027$5fVf.158200@fx09.iad>
 <CaWdnZEntLawFS__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <ccb8af3c-e497-4d6e-8040-826a4e87a6e7n@googlegroups.com>
 <g9qdnRjZj9uBlS7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <0f7ed34c-5aaa-4858-885e-66e16777f599n@googlegroups.com>
 <87a6a44s02.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <a9adde1d-ad2c-444c-9b14-88841f5e8783n@googlegroups.com>
 <87sfnv2e6e.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <3a337f21-4828-46c4-b5be-87c76cff9db4n@googlegroups.com>
 <v2lnh0$1c0ls$1@dont-email.me> <v2lth6$1nrfv$5@i2pn2.org>
 <v2m8e0$1ievj$1@dont-email.me> <v2m9iu$1qo0t$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v2m9u6$1ievj$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 23 May 2024 02:38:03 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1925149"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v2m9u6$1ievj$3@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5291
Lines: 96

On 5/22/24 10:33 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/22/2024 9:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/22/24 10:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/22/2024 6:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/22/24 5:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/24/2022 2:53 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>>>> He's dry-run P(P) and established that it doesn't halt. He's 
>>>>>> invoked H on it
>>>>>> and H reports that it doesn't halt. He's run P(P) and it halts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So something odd is going on there that needs an explanation.
>>>>>
>>>>> *MUCH BETTER WORDS THAN ONE YEAR AGO*
>>>>> *MUCH BETTER WORDS THAN ONE YEAR AGO*
>>>>> *MUCH BETTER WORDS THAN ONE YEAR AGO*
>>>>>
>>>>> typedef int (*ptr)();  // ptr is pointer to int function in C
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is trivial to see that for every H/D pair of the infinite
>>>>> set of H/D pairs that match the above template that
>>>>>
>>>>> D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own final
>>>>> state at line 06 and halt because D correctly simulated by
>>>>> H remains stuck in recursive simulation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Deciders are only accountable for the behavior of their inputs
>>>>> and are thus not allowed to report on the behavior of the computation
>>>>> that they themselves are contained within.
>>>>
>>>> No. "Behavior of their inputss" MEANS for Turing Machines that are 
>>>> computing properties of Turing Machines (like Halt Deciders) have 
>>>> the "behavior of their input" defined as the Behavior of the machine 
>>>> their input represents/describes/specifies.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Only specifies and no matter how many times you deny it,
>>> it remains a verified fact that:
>>> the input to H
>>> the input to H
>>> the input to H
>>> the input to H
>>> the input to H
>>> the input to H
>>> the input to H
>>> specifies that it never reaches its own final state and halts.
>>
>> No since when the input is run, 
> 
> *That has nothing to do with*
> *The behavior that the input to H specifies*
> *The behavior that the input to H specifies*
> *The behavior that the input to H specifies*
> *The behavior that the input to H specifies*
> *The behavior that the input to H specifies*
> *The behavior that the input to H specifies*
> *The behavior that the input to H specifies*
> 
> *The behavior that the input to H specifies*
> *The behavior that the input to H specifies*
> *The behavior that the input to H specifies*
> *The behavior that the input to H specifies*
> *The behavior that the input to H specifies*
> *The behavior that the input to H specifies*
> *The behavior that the input to H specifies*
> 

Sure it does.

What else does the question: Does the program described to the decider 
halt mean other than that?

You just don't understand the maning of the words, because you never 
studied them, but are just GUESSING, and guessing wrong.