Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<v38eqd$2foi0$6@i2pn2.org> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
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: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets Date: Wed, 29 May 2024 19:47:24 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <v38eqd$2foi0$6@i2pn2.org> References: <v3501h$lpnh$1@dont-email.me> <v362eu$2d367$3@i2pn2.org> <v363js$vg63$2@dont-email.me> <v36803$2d368$3@i2pn2.org> <v368je$100kd$3@dont-email.me> <v373mr$2d367$5@i2pn2.org> <v37bpa$15n0b$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Wed, 29 May 2024 23:47:25 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="2613824"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 In-Reply-To: <v37bpa$15n0b$1@dont-email.me> Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 8068 Lines: 178 On 5/29/24 9:49 AM, olcott wrote: > On 5/29/2024 6:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 5/28/24 11:49 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/28/2024 10:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 5/28/24 10:23 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 5/28/2024 9:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 5/28/24 12:16 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> 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 } >>>>>>> >>>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ >>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ >>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Formalizing the Linz Proof structure* >>>>>>> ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines >>>>>>> ∀x ∈ Turing_Machines_Descriptions >>>>>>> ∀y ∈ Finite_Strings >>>>>>> such that H(x,y) = Halts(x,x) >>>>>> >>>>>> But since for x being the description of the H^ built from that H >>>>>> and y being the same, it turns out that no matter what answer H >>>>>> gives, it will be wrong. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> We have not gotten to that point yet this post is so that >>>>> you can fully understand what templates are and how they work. >>>> >>>> But note, x, being a Turing Machine, is NOT a "template" >>>> >>>> And H, isn't a "set of Turing Machines", but an arbitrary member of >>>> that set, so all we need to do is find a single x, y, possible >>>> determined as a function of H (so, BUILT from a template, but not a >>>> template themselves) that shows that particular H was wrong. >>>> >>>> >>>> That is basically what Linz does. >>>> >>>> Given a SPECIFIC (but arbitary) H, we can construct a specific H^ >>>> built from a template from H, that that H can not get right. >>>> >>>> All the other H's might get this input right, but we don't care, we >>>> have shown that for every H we >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> (And I think you have an error in your reference to Halts, I think >>>>>> you mean Halts(x,y) not Halts(x,x) >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yes good catch. I was trying to model embedded_H / ⟨Ĥ⟩ >>>>> and then changed my mind to make it more general. >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Here is the same thing applied to H/D pairs* >>>>>>> ∃H ∈ C_Functions >>>>>>> ∀D ∈ x86_Machine_Code_of_C_Functions >>>>>>> such that H(D,D) = Halts(D,D) >>>>>> >>>>>> Not the same thing. >>>>>> ∃H ∈ C_Functions >>>>>> is not equivalent to >>>>>> ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines >>>>>> >>>>>> as there are many C_Functions that are not the equivalent of >>>>>> Turing Machines. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The whole purpose here is to get you to understand what >>>>> templates are and how they reference infinite sets. >>>>> >>>> >>>> But the problem is that even in your formulation, H and D are, when >>>> doing the test, SPECIFIC PROGRAMS and not "templates" as Halts is >>>> defined on the domain of PROGRAMS. >>>> >>>> Similarly, a "Template" doesn't have a specific set of >>>> x86_Machine_Code_of_C_function, at least not one with defined >>>> behavior since if it tries to reference code outside of itself, then >>>> Halts of that just isn't defined, only Halts of that code + the >>>> specific machine deciding it. >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In both cases infinite sets are examined to see >>>>>>> if any H exists with the required properties. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, but the logic of Turing Machines looks at them one at a time, >>>>>> and the input is a FULL INDEPENDENT PROGRAM. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines >>>>> That does not look at one machine it looks as an infinite set of >>>>> machines. I am very happy to find out that you were not playing head >>>>> games. Linz actually used the words that you referred to. >>>> >>>> while the ∃H part can create a set of machines, each element of that >>>> set is INDIVIDUALLY TESTED in the following conditions, so, when we >>>> get to your test H(x,y) = Halts(x,x), each of H, x, y are >>>> individual members of the set, and we THEN collect the set of all of >>>> them. >>>> >>>> If we try to say >>>> ∃x ∈ Natural Numbers, such that x+x = 3 >>>> we can't say that x is both 1 and 2 and thus as a set meet the >>>> requirement. For the conditions, each qualifier select a single >>>> prospective element, and those are tested to see if that meet the >>>> requirement. >>>> >>> >>> So it never was about any specific machine as Linz misleading words >>> seemed to indicate. It was always about examining each element of an >>> infinite set. >> >> No, you just don't understand how logic works. >> > > *Sure I do or I could not have encoded this correctly* > > Of the infinite set of Turing_Machines does there exist at > least one H that always gets this H(x,y) = Halts(x,y) correctly > for every {x,y} pair of the infinite set of {x,y} pairs? > > *Formalizing the Linz Proof structure* > ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines > ∀x ∈ Turing_Machines_Descriptions > ∀y ∈ Finite_Strings > such that H(x,y) = Halts(x,y) > > Everyone that knows the truth knows that I am correct and you are wrong. > There is NO correct reasoning that can possibly show that I am wrong. Really? that shows how bad your "correct reasoning" must be, so NO H can exist that gets right the x, y what represent the H^ that Linz creates from that H. > > Mike Terry would know that I am correct. Ben might not understand > quantification. Ben did verify this encoding: > > When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ > Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ > Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn > > *I might like this encoding better* > When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ > Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ > Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn > > And since if H (H^) (H^) goes to Qn and says H^ (H^) won't halt, we can by simple inspection see tht H^ (H^) will also go th Qn and halt, so that set of H's were wrong. And if H (H^) (H^) goes to Qy, and says that H^ (H^) will halt, we can see by simple inspection that H^ (H^) will go into an infinte loop and not halt. Remember, BY DEFINITION H^.H (H^) (H^) will go to the equivalent state that H (H^) (H^) will go to. ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========