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,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Hypothetical possibilities
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2024 12:24:37 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 128
Message-ID: <v7inl6$1uji$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v7gl30$3j9fi$1@dont-email.me> <v7h1fl$3lcvq$3@dont-email.me>
 <v7h224$3li66$3@dont-email.me> <v7h3je$3lcvq$6@dont-email.me>
 <v7h53p$3m6kq$1@dont-email.me>
 <e58a2ea9135650d687ad29b66149a0a7c78108e0@i2pn2.org>
 <v7h6mu$3mje2$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2024 12:24:39 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3a4f88341f545a15904fc2e6278365ef";
	logging-data="64114"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18avSBPas7okPnoO5SKQI+c"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:KyLB4ftAhnynntU2/dUjPv6sqyQ=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <v7h6mu$3mje2$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 6179

Op 20.jul.2024 om 22:29 schreef olcott:
> On 7/20/2024 3:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/20/24 4:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/20/2024 2:36 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 20.jul.2024 om 21:09 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 7/20/2024 2:00 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 20.jul.2024 om 17:28 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>    DDD();
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (a) Termination Analyzers / Partial Halt Deciders must halt
>>>>>>> this is a design requirement.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (b) Every simulating termination analyzer HHH either
>>>>>>> aborts the simulation of its input or not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (c) Within the hypothetical case where HHH does not abort
>>>>>>> the simulation of its input {HHH, emulated DDD and executed DDD}
>>>>>>> never stop running.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This violates the design requirement of (a) therefore HHH must
>>>>>>> abort the simulation of its input.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And when it aborts, the simulation is incorrect. When HHH aborts 
>>>>>> and halts, it is not needed to abort its simulation, because it 
>>>>>> will halt of its own.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you are trying to get away with saying that no HHH
>>>>> ever needs to abort the simulation of its input and HHH
>>>>> will stop running?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, you try to get away with saying that a HHH that is coded to 
>>>> abort and halt, will never stop running, only because you are 
>>>> dreaming of *another* HHH that does not abort.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *You know that I didn't say anything like that*
>>>
>>> Unless I refer to the infinite set of every possible
>>> HHH my reviewers try to get away with saying that I am
>>> referring to the wrong HHH.
>>>
>>> void DDD()
>>> {
>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>    return;
>>> }
>>>
>>> DDD correctly simulated by pure function HHH cannot
>>> possibly reach its own return instruction.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> And the problem you ignore is that each HHH is given the DDD that 
>> calls itself, and not some other HHH, and thus you can't look at the 
>> other 
> 
> Yet again trying to get away with saying that when every element
> of an infinite set cannot reach its return instruction that some
> of these elements still reach their return instruction.

No, you are trying to get away with saying that, although all variants 
of HHH are incorrect, the infinite set of them is correct.

The fact that none of them can reach its own return instruction, proves 
that these simulations are incorrect.
Other simulations are shown, which prove that it is possible for a 
simulation to reach the return of a HHH that aborts.
But HHH cannot possibly reach the return of its *own* simulation.
So, you are proving that HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.


DDD is a misleading and unneeded complication. It is easy to eliminate DDD:

        int main() {
          return HHH(main);
        }

This has the same problem. This proves that the problem is not in DDD, 
but in HHH, which halts when it aborts the simulation, but it decides 
that the simulation of itself does not halt.
It shows that HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.

HHH is simply unable to decide about finite recursions.

void Finite_Recursion (int N) {
   if (N > 0) Finite_Recursion (N - 1);
}

It decides after N recursions that there is an infinite recursion, which 
is incorrect.

Olcott's HHH is programmed to abort the simulation after N cycles of 
recursive simulations. Therefore, it is incorrect to abort the 
simulation of HHH when the simulated HHH has performed only N-1 cycles, 
because that changes the behaviour of HHH.
Since the simulated HHH always runs one cycle behind the simulating HHH, 
it is clear that HHH can never simulate enough cycles for a correct 
simulation, as is required by the x86 language.
Therefore, the simulation is incorrect according to the criteria olcott 
stipulated.
The conclusion is simple:
HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.

No matter how much olcott wants it to be correct, or how many times 
olcott repeats that it is correct, it does not change the fact that such 
a simulation is incorrect, because it is unable to reach the end.
Olcott's own claim that the simulated HHH does not reach its end 
confirms it. The trace he has shown also proves that HHH cannot reach 
the end of its own simulation. So, his own claims prove that it is true 
that HHH cannot possibly simulate itself up to the end, which makes the 
simulation incorrect.

Sipser would agree that this incorrect simulation cannot be used to 
detect a non-halting behaviour.

Olcott does not know how to point to an error in this explanation, but 
prefers to ignore it. He even consistently removes it from the 
citations. So, I will repeat it, until either an error is found, or 
olcott admits that HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.