Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
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: Thu, 23 May 2024 09:12:30 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 112
Message-ID: <v2mq8v$1l0r2$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>
 <v2mb28$1io97$1@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 09:12:31 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8f51d81b51ad8544854d20d509d18ce7";
	logging-data="1737570"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18KNQ4CP6gDdILtAmnn4fkZ"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:zljEGpmjnbwMwFVtqOi4UdGUVpE=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <v2mb28$1io97$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 6076

Op 23.mei.2024 om 04:52 schreef olcott:
> 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.
> 
The failure to provide a counter example is not a proof.