Path: ...!news.nobody.at!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2024 08:07:08 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 113
Message-ID: <v4pcds$ln46$4@dont-email.me>
References: <v428vv$2no74$2@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$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4oo7t$hpjr$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2024 15:07:09 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="24f2a1964fe8769a85c52084edf5324e";
	logging-data="711814"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/LK/ok1FNWk3vK2VAodLai"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:zPwVSEA3y7YrI+XFAgkumUuGuDw=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v4oo7t$hpjr$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5580

On 6/17/2024 2:22 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-06-16 12:37:38 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> If the above main does not halt then H it calls is not a decider.
> 

That is merely a more difficult to understand
example of this simplest possible case.

void DDD()
{
   H0(DDD);
}

int main()
{
   H0(DDD);
}


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