Path: ...!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: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2024 14:18:54 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 63
Message-ID: <v4i52u$30usa$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v428vv$2no74$2@dont-email.me> <v43ib7$38hnd$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4628o$6ero$1@dont-email.me> <v468qt$7uvj$1@dont-email.me>
 <v47joj$je45$1@dont-email.me> <v47kt3$jhs8$1@dont-email.me>
 <v47l92$je45$2@dont-email.me> <v48tt4$tqad$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4a07r$157ic$1@dont-email.me> <v4beis$1h0p6$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4cceu$1mi5i$2@dont-email.me> <v4corm$1p0h0$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4cp5s$1pe0q$1@dont-email.me> <v4cs0b$1p0h1$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4csdq$1q0a8$1@dont-email.me> <v4ctuq$1p0h1$2@dont-email.me>
 <v4cuc6$1qedu$1@dont-email.me> <v4e9qm$25ks0$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4epji$28g4v$2@dont-email.me> <v4fhj3$2dce5$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4fi0m$2dvk4$1@dont-email.me> <v4h4ag$2q9hc$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4he7s$2sdqr$4@dont-email.me> <v4i41a$30e5b$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2024 21:18:54 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e98c84ba8c24dba675dc413b0edf993a";
	logging-data="3177354"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/x27EUPGabG9cnNT0IBt/c"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:kU4O/O8tLlu+GX/bTrfxwn0l6NY=
In-Reply-To: <v4i41a$30e5b$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3996

On 6/14/2024 2:00 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 14.jun.2024 om 14:49 schreef olcott:
>> I ran the actual code to verify the facts.
>> HH1(DD,DD) does not have a pathological relationship to its input
>> thus this input terminates normally.
> 
> Your terminology is confusing. What you call a "pathological 
> relationship" is that H must simulate itself.
> 

*CONVENTIONAL TERMINOLOGY*
For any program H that might determine whether programs halt, a
"pathological" program D, called with some input, can pass its own
source and its input to H and then specifically do the opposite of what
H predicts D will do. No H can exist that handles this case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem

>>
>> HH(DD,DD) does have a pathological relationship to its input
>> thus this input CANNOT POSSIBLY terminate normally.
> 
> Yes, indeed! Well done! The input of HH(DD,DD) is aborted too early, 

If the input is never aborted THEN IT NEVER TERMINATES.
your coding skills must not be very good.

> because HH cannot possibly simulate itself up to its final state. That 
> means that its simulation cannot terminate normally.
> 

*It is D that calls H in recursive simulation*

>>
>>> It is only that H simulated by itself is aborted too early. Is that 
>>> so difficult to understand for you?
>>>
>> Aborted too early is false.
>> Unless HH(DD,DD) aborts pretty soon HH and DD crash due to
>> out-of-memory error.
>>
>>>> If H waits for some other H to abort their
>>>> simulation then H waits forever.
>>>
>>> There is no other H. 
>>
>> Clearly you hardly understand anything that I have been saying.
>> (a) HH(DD,DD) directly executed in main simulates its input.
>> (b) The simulated DD calls a simulated HH(DD,DD) that
>> (c) simulates another instance of DD... goto (b)
> I understand that very well, a, b, c explain why HH is not able to 
> simulate itself up to the end. You are proving my claims.
> 
> Another way of saying the same thing is:
> 1) HH starts simulating DD

Until H sees that D correctly simulated by H cannot
possibly terminate normally.


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