Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Re: Who here understands that the last paragraph is Necessarily true?

From	Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups	comp.theory
Subject	Re: Who here understands that the last paragraph is Necessarily true?
Date	2024-07-19 10:57 +0300
Organization	-
Message-ID	<v7d68d$2t7st$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	(10 earlier) <v721po$h4kr$1@dont-email.me> <v75a0l$16bjt$1@dont-email.me> <v76dth$1cf96$3@dont-email.me> <v77sna$1o83i$1@dont-email.me> <v78grc$1rc43$7@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

On 2024-07-17 13:27:08 +0000, olcott said:

> On 7/17/2024 2:43 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-07-16 18:24:49 +0000, olcott said:
>> 
>>> On 7/16/2024 3:12 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-07-15 02:33:28 +0000, olcott said:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 7/14/2024 9:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/14/24 9:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Any input that must be aborted to prevent the non termination
>>>>>>> of simulating termination analyzer HHH necessarily specifies
>>>>>>> non-halting behavior or it would never need to be aborted.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Excpet, as I have shown, it doesn't.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Your problem is you keep on ILEGALLY changing the input in your 
>>>>>> argument because you have misdefined what the input is.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _DDD()
>>>>> [00002163] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
>>>>> [00002164] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
>>>>> [00002166] 6863210000 push 00002163 ; push DDD
>>>>> [0000216b] e853f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DDD)
>>>>> [00002170] 83c404     add esp,+04
>>>>> [00002173] 5d         pop ebp
>>>>> [00002174] c3         ret
>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002174]
>>>>> 
>>>>> The input *is* the machine address of this finite
>>>>> string of bytes: 558bec6863210000e853f4ffff83c4045dc3
>>>> 
>>>> You have already said that a decider is not allowed to answer anything
>>>> other than its input. Now you say that the the program at 15c3 is not
>>>> a part of the input. Therefore a decider is not allowed consider it
>>>> even to the extent to decide whether it ever returns. But without that
>>>> knowledge it is not possible to determine whether DDD halts.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> It maps the finite string 558bec6863210000e853f4ffff83c4045dc3
>>> to non-halting behavior because this finite string calls HHH(DDD)
>>> in recursive simulation.
>> 
>> That mapping is not a part of the finite string and not a part of the
>> problem specification.
> 
> decider/input pairs <are> a key element of the specification.

Not of any specification of any interesting problem.

>> The finite string does not reveal what is the
>> effect of calling whatever that address happens to contain.
> 
> A simulating termination analyzer proves this.

Irrelevant, as you just said it is not a part of the input.

>> The
>> behaviour of HHH is specified outside of the input. Therefore your
>> "decider" decides about a non-input, which you said is not allowed.
> 
> HHH is not allowed to report on the behavior of it actual self
> in its own directly executed process. HHH is allowed to report on
> the effect of the behavior of the simulation of itself simulating DDD.

Now you said that it is allowed to report on a non-input.
Earlier you have said that it is not allowed to report on a non-input.

-- 
Mikko

Back to comp.theory | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

csiph-web