Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon 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: References: 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: 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. >