Path: ...!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: Mon, 17 Jun 2024 16:51:37 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 121
Message-ID: <v4pihr$l7le$6@dont-email.me>
References: <v428vv$2no74$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> <v4nd7k$6b5r$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4peaq$ln46$13@dont-email.me> <v4pgok$l7le$3@dont-email.me>
 <v4phin$mub6$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2024 16:51:39 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="fee104aae69170b4ce923c38ec4c77c3";
	logging-data="695982"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18LDujPD5zxBjQ1U+e1wi1p"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ZuHyqghpYAodIxzTk4Rk9tHF1Vg=
In-Reply-To: <v4phin$mub6$3@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 6434

Op 17.jun.2024 om 16:35 schreef olcott:
> On 6/17/2024 9:21 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 17.jun.2024 om 15:39 schreef olcott:
>>> On 6/16/2024 2:08 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 16.jun.2024 om 14:37 schreef olcott:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> So, there was never a relation with the Linz proof, where the part 
>>>> that does the opposite of what H predicts plays the essential role.
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is the key essence of the pathological relationship in all
>>> of the halting problem counter-example proofs including the Linz proof.
>>>
>>> void DDD()
>>> {
>>>    H0(DDD);
>>> }
>>>
>>> int main()
>>> {
>>>    H0(DDD);
>>> }
>>>
>>>> What remains is the fact that H is unable to simulate itself up to 
>>>> its final state, which is called a "pathological" property of H.
>>>>
>>>
>>> H is always correct to abort the simulation of any input
>>> that would cause itself to not terminate normally.
>>>
>>> When this is construed as non-halting criteria then H is
>>> always correct to reject all of these inputs as non-halting.
>>>
>>
>> When! But that would be a big mistake to do. The inability of H0 to 
>> simulate itself does not tell us anything about the halting behaviour 
>> of the program.
>>
> 
> Your view here is merely ignorant of the fact that deciders
> must report on the behavior specified by their inputs.
> 
> It is incorrect to assume against the facts when DDD correctly
> simulated by H0 calls a simulated H0(DDD) that this call will
> return to the correctly simulated DDD.

It is incorrect to assume that a failing simulator reports anything, 
except it own failure.
So, you may wish that it reports about DDD, but that is irrelevant.