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: No decider is allowed to report on the behavior of the
 computation that itself is contained within
Date: Wed, 22 May 2024 21:52:56 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 112
Message-ID: <v2mb28$1io97$1@dont-email.me>
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> <v2ma6a$1qo0t$5@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 23 May 2024 04:52:57 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ba728845a682305e7e13b3854d529db3";
	logging-data="1663271"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18Bdv9PCjZYSi/wdrHLIuau"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:nG5T1dXQgS+qJcfsMJvCrtUHTPQ=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v2ma6a$1qo0t$5@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 5947

On 5/22/2024 9:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> 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?

*That is the FREAKING WRONG QUESTION*

*NO ONE KNEW THAT IS WAS THE WRONG QUESTION*
*ONLY BECAUSE EVERYONE REJECTED A SIMULATING*
*TERMINATION ANALYZER OUT-OF-HAND WITHOUT REVIEW*

D of every H/D pair where D is correctly simulated
by H cannot possibly reach is own line 06 and halt.

The failure to provide a counter-example will be
construed as proof of this.

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