Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2024 10:29:05 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v4k8fh$2218$13@i2pn2.org>
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>
 <v4k7he$3gc4t$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 14:29:05 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="67624"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v4k7he$3gc4t$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6433
Lines: 126

On 6/15/24 10:13 AM, olcott wrote:
> 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.

But not necessarily INFINITE recursive simulation.

For example:

int test(ptr x) {
     return 0;
}

int infinite_loop(ptr x) {
    while(1) continue;
    return 0;
}

int D0(ptr x) {
    H(test, test);
    return 1;
}

int main() {
     H(D0,D0);
     return 0;
}


are you claiming that just because D calls H(test,test) that this makes 
D non-halting due to recursive simulation?

OR if D instead calls H on infinite_loop that H has been programmed to 
detect makes D non-halting due to recursive simulation.

Basic principle, if D calls H on an input that H will eather be able to 
simulate to the end, or that H decides to abort its simulation of, such 
a call should not be indication of "non-halting" behavior.

the call to H(test, test) or H(infinite_loop, infinite_loop) are not 
fundamentally different than the call the H(D0,D0) on this basis.

And thus for the above non-pathological D0, it should be expected that 
H, if it is a proper decider, should be able to get the answer, since it 
is possible.

The fact that you H never get to the point of seeing the difference 
between non-pathological D0 and the pathological D means that H isn't 
doing the best job it can. and maybe your approach is just flawed.

Thus, we show that the mear fact that D calls H(D,D) is NOT by itself 
proper ground for calling the input non-halting, but is based on 
INCORRECT LOGIC.

> 
>>> 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.)
>