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 09:48:52 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 104
Message-ID: <v4k9kk$3gc4t$6@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>
 <v4k7he$3gc4t$1@dont-email.me> <v4k8us$3g29j$3@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 16:48:52 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="65be3053bb2d9b452c13d5ddc3153d90";
	logging-data="3682461"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18WSMwfvRXk0H/mkjz8YMnu"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:HUj8ZN6maeJNlt/dqb2twU3GhZU=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v4k8us$3g29j$3@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5674

On 6/15/2024 9:37 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 15.jun.2024 om 16:13 schreef olcott:
>> 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.
> 
> Is this the new definition of "pathological"?

*It is the same thing that I have been saying all along*

00   typedef void (*ptr)(); // pointer to void function
01
02   int HH(ptr P, ptr I);
03
04   void DDD(int (*x)())
05   {
06     HH(x, x);
07     return;
08   }
09
10   int main()
11   {
12     HH(DDD,DDD);
13   }

Line 12 main()
   invokes HH(DDD,DDD); that simulates DDD()

*REPEAT UNTIL outer HH aborts*
   Line 06 simulated DDD()
   invokes simulated HH(DDD,DDD); that simulates DDD()

DDD correctly simulated by HH never reaches its own "return"
instruction and halts.



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