Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!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.lang.c++,comp.lang.c
Subject: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its
 own line 06
Date: Sat, 25 May 2024 12:46:16 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 174
Message-ID: <v2t859$2vna0$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v2ns85$1rd65$1@dont-email.me> <v2s46t$2pj9q$2@dont-email.me>
 <HOGdnVr9MpKtlc_7nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 25 May 2024 19:46:18 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="010db72b80f31f696ef17c51994f71bb";
	logging-data="3136832"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18LqFFUA9TNYad01/XjDEvD"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:g4u05UUGPsJrIeklI5vMY42oUd4=
In-Reply-To: <HOGdnVr9MpKtlc_7nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 8020

On 5/25/2024 10:48 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 25/05/2024 08:32, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 23.mei.2024 om 18:52 schreef olcott:
>>> 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       }
>>>
>>> The above template refers to an infinite set of H/D pairs where D is
>>> correctly simulated by pure function H. This was done because many
>>> reviewers used the shell game ploy to endlessly switch which H/D was
>>> being referred to.
>>>
>>> *Correct Simulation Defined*
>>> This is provided because every reviewer had a different notion of
>>> correct simulation that diverges from this notion.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> *Execution Trace*
>>> Line 11: main() invokes H(D,D); H(D,D) simulates lines 01, 02, and 03 of
>>> D. This invokes H(D,D) again to repeat the process in endless recursive
>>> simulation.
>>>
>>
>> Olcott's own words are that the simulation of D never reaches past 
>> line 03. So the lines following line 03 do not play a role and, 
>> therefore, can be removed without changing the claim. This leads to:
>>
>> 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         return H(p, p);
>> 04       }
>> 05
>> 06       int main()
>> 07       {
>> 08         H(D,D);
>> 09         return 0;
>> 10       }
>>
> 
> Correct - as far as this specific thread is concerned.  But PO's H and P 
> are intended to be part of a larger argument supposedly refuting the 
> standard halting problem (HP) proof (that no TM is a halt decider), e.g. 
> as covered in the Linz book.  PO has created an extract of that proof as 
> a PDF that he sometimes links to.
> 

*I renamed this thread to be more accurate*
*now that I got people's attention*

The material the you referenced is not appropriate for this group
and outside the scope of the same thread in the comp.theory group.

> Also note that PO's claim (in this specific thread) is that the 
> *simulation* of D never reaches past line 03.  That is not saying that 
> the *computation* D(D) 

*No you are paraphrasing my words incorrectly*
*No you are paraphrasing my words incorrectly*
*No you are paraphrasing my words incorrectly*

*D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot*
*possibly reach its own line 06 and halt*

*Any change-of-subject away form those exact words is*
*an example of the strawman deception error of reasoning*

*Correct Simulation Defined*
    This is provided because many reviewers had a different
    notion of correct simulation that diverges from this notion.

    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.

> never proceeds past line 3 or that D(D) never 
> halts.  (This is important in the wider HP proof context.  PO is deeply 
> confused on this point.)
> 

*Not at all you are simply not paying close enough attention*
*Not at all you are simply not paying close enough attention*
*Not at all you are simply not paying close enough attention*

>>
>> What we see is that the only property of D that is used is that it is 
>> a parameter duplicator. (Is that why it is called D?). H needs 2 
>> parameters, but it can be given only one input parameter, so the 
>> parameter duplicator is required to allow H to decide about itself.
> 
> Yes, but the rest of D is the key to its role in the HP proof - again, 
> not relevant for this specific thread.  

*Exactly*

> [In HP proof, D's role is to 
> calculate H's decision on whether D(D) halts and then behave in the 
> opposite fashion, providing a counterexample to the claim that H 
> correctly decides the halting behaviour of /all/ inputs (P,I).  I.e. it 
> shows that H gets it wrong for the case P=I=D.]
> 
>>
>>
>>
>> Of the infinite set of H that simulate at least one step, none of 
>> them, when simulated by H, halts, because none of them reaches its 
>> final state. Olcott's claim is equivalent to the claim of non-halting 
>> behaviour of H.
> 
> No - note my remarks above about the distinction between the behaviour 
> of the *computation* D(D) and the (partial) *simulation* of that 
> computation by H.  H can simply choose to discontinue that simulation at 
> any point [aka "abort" the simulation, in PO's terms], but then H would 
> continue and halt.
> 

*This is already specified as pure function H*

(1) the function return values are identical for identical
arguments (no variation with local static variables, non-local
variables, mutable reference arguments or input streams, i.e.,
referential transparency), and

(2) the function has no side effects (no mutation of local static
variables, non-local variables, mutable reference arguments or
input/output streams). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_function#

> PO is pretty clueless about everything involved, and I believe he is 
> quite incapable of abstract thought, including what people would 
> generally regard as "logical reasoning", so there really is no point in 
> arguing with him.  (I mean Really...)
> 
> Mike.
> 

The actual truth is that the strawman deception change-the-subject
form of fake rebuttal is the only rebuttal ever provided.

Thanks for your time, I really appreciate it. You have provided
some excellent reviews of my work and resolved key unresolved
questions about my work that were left unresolved for two years.

On 3/1/2024 12:41 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
Message-ID: <rLmcnQQ3-N_tvH_4nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>


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