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: Sun, 16 Jun 2024 08:21:34 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 81
Message-ID: <v4m09f$3tvpi$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v428vv$2no74$2@dont-email.me> <v47kt3$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>
 <v4k9kk$3gc4t$6@dont-email.me> <v4kb18$3gpbj$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4kbkv$3h3iu$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2024 08:21:35 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2ca83788b9852bfe87481549f1ce4e04";
	logging-data="4128562"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/hel6G6/+pMNvWmFqPIbEZ"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:PsqB3sdG5hTsERto7Oe8nF22iSw=
In-Reply-To: <v4kbkv$3h3iu$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 4737

Op 15.jun.2024 om 17:23 schreef olcott:
> On 6/15/2024 10:12 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 15.jun.2024 om 16:48 schreef olcott:
>>> On 6/15/2024 9:37 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> So, you agree that you are changing definitions. 
> 
> Not at all. The original definition still applies when it
> is made more generic.
> 
> 01       int D(ptr p)
> 02       {
> 03         int Halt_Status = H(p, p);
> 04         if (Halt_Status)
> 05           HERE: goto HERE;
> 06         return Halt_Status;
> 07       }
> 
> D correctly simulated by H has isomorphic behavior to DDD
> correctly simulated by HH, both get stuck in recursive
> simulation.
> 

When asked what is a pathological program olcott replied:
Op 14.jun.2024 om 21:18 schreef olcott:
> 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 he defines a "pathological" program as a program that calls H.
All words about doing the opposite of what H predicts, have disappeared.
Everyone sees the difference, but he is stuck is rebuttal mode and 
denies the change of definition.

His only excuse is that in both cases a recursive simulation is seen, 
but that is not the point.
He had already proved earlier that in

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

H produces a false negative, because main halts, whereas H reports 
non-halting. No relation with doing the opposite of what H predicts.
This happens for DDD as well. Just a false negative. No relation with 
doing the opposite of what H predicts.
Even in the case of D, it is just a false negative, because even olcott 
admits that his simulation does not process the part where D does the 
opposite of what H predicts.