Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<v4k7he$3gc4t$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
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 09:13:01 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 79 Message-ID: <v4k7he$3gc4t$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> <v4k74f$3g29j$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 16:13:02 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="65be3053bb2d9b452c13d5ddc3153d90"; logging-data="3682461"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/UOP+nZNU8I6OTwngCi1ER" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:upxkS2bj/2C4BNNwHqdfu1RpFOc= In-Reply-To: <v4k74f$3g29j$1@dont-email.me> Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 5111 On 6/15/2024 9:06 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: > 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. > Any function that calls H specifies recursive simulation. >> 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.) -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer