Path: ...!feed.opticnetworks.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,sci.logic
Subject: Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2024 16:06:06 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 70
Message-ID: <v4k74f$3g29j$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>
 <v4k0fc$3f0hc$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 16:06:07 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="685780a8c896c878e283792eab554abe";
	logging-data="3672371"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+N7F9i1C3lbLmaW+f1NRf6"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:6qfJApShzPaezpAzLRjbtFtX44I=
In-Reply-To: <v4k0fc$3f0hc$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 4753

Op 15.jun.2024 om 14:12 schreef olcott:
> 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(). 

You are twisting your own words,because main is not "pathological".
You do not even understand you own definition of "pathological":

Op 14.jun.2024 om 21:18 schreef olcott:
> 
> *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. 

No high level programming skills are needed to see that there is no part 
where main 'then specifically do the opposite of what H predicts it will 
do'.

It seems that you are changing the definition of "pathological" to 'any 
program for which H returns a false negative', which then becomes a 
tautology.

> Maybe if you were a PhD computer science professor you would
> understand this.

Many people without a PhD understand your are continuously changing 
definitions. No PhD needed. I am sorry for you if you don't grasp it.
(Btw, I never refer to my PhD, because I think arguments should 
convince, not authority.)