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: Thu, 23 May 2024 21:44:41 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v2orea$1tsmo$3@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> <v2ma6a$1qo0t$5@i2pn2.org>
 <v2mb28$1io97$1@dont-email.me> <v2mq8v$1l0r2$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2nfnr$1or9h$5@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 24 May 2024 01:44:42 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2028248"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v2nfnr$1or9h$5@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 6643
Lines: 123

On 5/23/24 9:18 AM, olcott wrote:
> 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.
> 

Which is why it is "Thesis", accepted as most probably true, but not 
proven, and not a Theorem, like the Halting Theorem, which HAS been 
conclusively proven.

You are just making it clear you don't understand the basics of logic.