Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<v3ifb1$3f51j$12@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!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 Subject: Re: Deciders are ONLY accountable for their actual inputs --- Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2024 20:57:37 +0200 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 87 Message-ID: <v3ifb1$3f51j$12@dont-email.me> References: <v3501h$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$1@dont-email.me> <v37i9p$lls$1@news.muc.de> <87y17smqnq.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <v37sap$18mfo$1@dont-email.me> <v3elpv$2mjca$1@dont-email.me> <v3fdif$2r6gg$1@dont-email.me> <v3h9af$3974i$1@dont-email.me> <v3htmb$3bkv5$7@dont-email.me> <v3ie97$3f51j$7@dont-email.me> <v3iemc$3f571$7@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2024 20:57:38 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7b2dfb52a2545f32ded9b03629a80d37"; logging-data="3642419"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+y9hrpgfGJjF5W2H3Ws9A4" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:xoMLj11TBkjDI0gM/RofqfT3UpA= Content-Language: en-GB In-Reply-To: <v3iemc$3f571$7@dont-email.me> Bytes: 5052 Op 02.jun.2024 om 20:46 schreef olcott: > On 6/2/2024 1:39 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >> Op 02.jun.2024 om 15:56 schreef olcott: >>> On 6/2/2024 3:08 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2024-06-01 15:09:02 +0000, olcott said: >>>> >>>>> On 6/1/2024 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 2024-05-29 18:31:52 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>> >>>>>>> *two dozen people were simply wrong* >>>>>> >>>>>> Why are people who are wrong so important that they deserve >>>>>> a subject line? I would think that people who are right are >>>>>> more interesting. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This is the key mistake of the definition of the halting problem >>>>> itself. >>>>> Linz makes this same mistake. I already covered this extensively in >>>>> another reply. >>>> >>>> The word "this" above does not denote anything so the first sentence >>>> does not mean anything. The word "same" in the second sentence refers >>>> to "this" in the first sentnece and therefore does not denote, either, >>>> so the second sentence does not say anything either. So the third >>>> sentence says that you covevered nothing. >>>> >>>>> That these two dozen different people are wrong about this shows that >>>>> the only basis for any rebuttal of my proof for the last three >>>>> years IS >>>>> WRONG. >>>> >>>> That you claim that these two dozen people are wrong does not show >>>> anything. It probably wouldn't even if you could show that they >>>> really were wrong. >>>> >>> >>> The only one that I am aware that is not wrong about the behavior >>> that a simulating halt decider must report on is myself. >>> >>> Only software engineers will understand that DD correctly simulated >>> by HH had different behavior than DD(DD). Comp Sci people allow Comp Sci >>> dogma to overrule verified facts. >>> >>> When I pinned Richard down on this he simply said that he does not care >>> that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD). >>> >>> It turns out that DD correctly simulated by HH <is> the behavior that >>> the input to HH(DD,DD) specifies. Deciders are ONLY accountable for >>> their actual inputs. Deciders compute the mapping FROM THEIR INPUTS... >>> >>> typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function in C >>> 00 int HH(ptr p, ptr i); >>> 01 int DD(ptr p) >>> 02 { >>> 03 int Halt_Status = HH(p, p); >>> 04 if (Halt_Status) >>> 05 HERE: goto HERE; >>> 06 return Halt_Status; >>> 07 } >>> 08 >>> 09 int main() >>> 10 { >>> 11 HH(DD,DD); >>> 12 return 0; >>> 13 } >>> >>> DD correctly emulated by HH with an x86 emulator cannot possibly >>> reach past its own machine instruction [00001c2e] in any finite >>> (or infinite) number of steps of correct emulation. >> >> Only because the call to HH at [00001c2e] does not return, because HH >> does not reach its own return in any finite (or infinite) number of >> steps of correct emulation. >> > > When HH correctly simulates DD and DD calls the simulated HH(DD,DD) > to simulate itself again > > *this simulated HH is not required to halt* > *this simulated HH is not required to halt* > *this simulated HH is not required to halt* > *this simulated HH is not required to halt* HH must halt. Therefore, a correct simulation of HH must halt, too. If it doesn't, either the simulation is incorrect, or HH does not halt.