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: Sun, 16 Jun 2024 13:30:18 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v4n7fa$61l9$1@i2pn2.org>
References: <v428vv$2no74$2@dont-email.me> <v48tt4$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> <v4m09f$3tvpi$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4mmai$1qt6$1@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 17:30:18 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="198313"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v4mmai$1qt6$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6356
Lines: 121

On 6/16/24 8:37 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/16/2024 1:21 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> 
> The code that "does the opposite" was never reachable by
> a simulating halt decider thus does not change the problem
> for a simulating halt decider when this code is removed.
> 
> By simplifying the problem we gain cognitive leverage. With
> less details to pay attention to the while simplified problem
> can be more deeply understood.
> 
>> 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 
> 
> The input does not halt and deciders are only accountable
> for the behavior of their input. Until I invented a simulating
> halt decider no one ever noticed that D correctly simulated by H
> could have different behavior that the directly executed D(D).

inputs, which are just strings, don't HAVE behvior, only wht they 
rerpresent.

By DEFINITION, the inputs to a Halt Decider represent the Macine being 
asked about, and its input.

That Machine has behavior, and for these cases, it halts, so you H is 
just proved incorrect in its answer. And that you are a liar.

And no one noticed that D correctly simulated by H could have a 
different behavior, because it can't. That is just you lying to yourself 
about what is correct.

> 
> No one ever noticed that the pathological relationship of D
> calling its own decider changed the behavior of D because
> everyone rejected simulation out-of-hand without review.

Nope. I remember looking at them when I was young, so you are just being 
the prototypical "russian" claiming you invented everything.

> 
>> 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.
>