Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.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: Thu, 23 May 2024 08:18:51 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 120
Message-ID: <v2nfnr$1or9h$5@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> <v2mq8v$1l0r2$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 15:18:52 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ba728845a682305e7e13b3854d529db3";
	logging-data="1862961"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+rDyGQnYAqMzzazZpQBZEV"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:n+MiXx+52dHxZxX0kuwAWSSvsIg=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v2mq8v$1l0r2$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 6471

On 5/23/2024 2:12 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> 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.

OK then Church-Turing is a wild guess.

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