Path: ...!feed.opticnetworks.net!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: Sat, 15 Jun 2024 07:12:28 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 88
Message-ID: <v4k0fc$3f0hc$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>
 <v4i52u$30usa$1@dont-email.me> <v4i7ne$311i2$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4ia6l$31vjj$1@dont-email.me> <v4jlds$3cq2s$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2024 14:12:28 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="020d44455d70acf7231aebb6a85d124b";
	logging-data="3637804"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/KrY+vTGkpy5+EBik7Bca6"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:aPZyjC6bAiFihtQdFUZpRLKbOYQ=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v4jlds$3cq2s$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5516

On 6/15/2024 4:03 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 14.jun.2024 om 22:46 schreef olcott:
>> On 6/14/2024 3:03 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 14.jun.2024 om 21:18 schreef olcott:
>>>> 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
>>>
>>> The problem is that your simulator does not even reach the 
>>> "pathological" part of D. 
>>
>> That is not the problem that is the criterion measure of a solution.
> 
> You are using the wrong criterion, because this wrong criterion also 
> also applies to other programs, without a "pathological" part.
> 
>         int main()
>         {
>           return H(main, 0);
>         }
> 
> where you proved that H reports a false negative.
> 
> So, your criterion has no relation with "pathological" programs.
> 

This criteria works correctly for ALL input, including pathological
main(). Maybe if you were a PhD computer science professor you would
understand this.

<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
   If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
   until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
   stop running unless aborted then

   H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
   specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words10/13/2022>



>>
>> _D()
>> [00000cfc](01) 55          push ebp
>> [00000cfd](02) 8bec        mov ebp,esp
>> [00000cff](03) 8b4508      mov eax,[ebp+08]
>> [00000d02](01) 50          push eax       ; push D
>> [00000d03](03) 8b4d08      mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>> [00000d06](01) 51          push ecx       ; push D
>> [00000d07](05) e800feffff  call 00000b0c  ; call H
>> [00000d0c](03) 83c408      add esp,+08
>> [00000d0f](02) 85c0        test eax,eax
>> [00000d11](02) 7404        jz 00000d17
>> [00000d13](02) 33c0        xor eax,eax
>> [00000d15](02) eb05        jmp 00000d1c
>> [00000d17](05) b801000000  mov eax,00000001
>> [00000d1c](01) 5d          pop ebp
>> [00000d1d](01) c3          ret
>> Size in bytes:(0034) [00000d1d]
> 
> Nice try, but completely beside the point.
> Are you really unable to see this has no relation with a "pathological" 
> program that contradicts the result of H?
> 
> The only thing you have done so far is proving that no H exists that 
> correctly simulates itself up to its final state and therefore it is 
> unable to see the full behaviour of its input, because it always 
> prematurely aborts the simulation one cycle too early.
> 
> If you don't understand such simple facts, discussion makes no sense.

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