Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory, sci.logic, comp.ai.philosophy |
| Subject | Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D |
| Date | 2023-06-23 00:06 -0500 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <u7398h$3kr32$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | <u72sdf$3fl68$1@dont-email.me> <Jo7lM.69542$8uge.50240@fx14.iad> <u732pk$3k3si$1@dont-email.me> <Cf9lM.19426$VKY6.18464@fx13.iad> |
Cross-posted to 3 groups.
On 6/22/2023 11:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/22/23 11:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/22/2023 9:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/22/23 9:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> When the halting problem is construed as requiring a correct yes/no
>>>> answer to a contradictory question it cannot be solved. Any input D
>>>> defined to do the opposite of whatever Boolean value that its
>>>> termination analyzer H returns is a contradictory input relative to H.
>>>
>>> So, you agree with the Halting Theorem that says that a correct
>>> Halting Decider can't be made?
>>>
>>> Then way are you trying to refute it?
>>>
>>
>> I just refuted it. From the frame-of-reference of H input D that does
>> the opposite of whatever Boolean value that H returns the question:
>> "Does D halt on its input" is a contradictory question.
>
> No, you confirmed it and refuted a Strawman.
>
> You just said that you can not create an H that gives the correct
> answer, which is EXACTLY what the theorem says, that you can not make a
> decider that answers the exact question: "Does the machine represented
> by the input halt".
>
>
That is not the whole question. Ignoring the context really does not
make this context go away.
The whole question is what Boolean value can H return that corresponds
to the behavior of D(D) when D does the opposite of whatever value that
H returns?
>>
>> You can either fail to comprehend this or pretend to fail to
>> comprehend this yet the actual facts remain unchanged.
>
> No, you don't seem to understand what you are saying.
>
> You yourself just said "It can not be solved".
>
When a question is construed as contradictory it cannot have a correct
answer only because the question itself contradictory, thus incorrect.
> The fact that you think you can change the question and come up with a
> solution for that OTHER question (which isn't the actual Halting Problem
> that you refer to), doesn't mean you have refuted that you can't
> correctly answer the question you agreed can't be correctly answered.
>
When the halting problem question is understood to be incorrect then it
places no limit on computation and an equivalent question is required.
>>
>>>>
>>>> When H returns 1 for inputs that it determines do halt and returns 0
>>>> for
>>>> inputs that either do not halt or do the opposite of whatever Boolean
>>>> value that H returns then these pathological inputs are no longer
>>>> contradictory and become decidable.
>>>
>>> So, you are admitting that you criteria is DIFFERENT then that of the
>>> Halting Problem, so your "Termination Analyzer" is NOT a "Solution to
>>> the Halting Problem"
>>>
>>
>> No I am not. I do not believe that a termination analyzer can be
>> required to report on different behavior than the behavior that it
>> actually sees.
>
> So, you don't belive the requirements as stated are the requirement.
When I require you to provide a correct (yes or no) answer to the
question: What time is it? You can't do this because the question is
incorrect.
If I ask you to tell me whether or not the Liar Paradox
"This sentence is not true" is true or false you cannot answer because
it is a contradictory question.
>
> I guess that means you believe it is ok to use strawmen instead of the
> actual problem, and lie that you are doing the actual requirements.
>
It seems that myself and Professor Sipser agree that another criteria is
equivalent. When H would never stop running unless H aborted its
simulation of D proves that D does not halt from the point of view of H.
If H does not abort D then H never halts this proves that not aborting
is D is incorrect.
> YOU FAIL.
>
>>
>> So if the halting problem requires its halt decider to report on
>> different behavior than it actually sees then the halting problem is
>> incorrect for another different reason.
>
> If the Halt Decider doesn't see the behavior that the Halting Problem
> asks for, then the Decider is the one having the problem. The existance
> of the UTM means that the decider has the ability to recreate as much of
> that behavior as it wants to see. Thus, the data is theoretically
> available to it. It just needs to figure out the right way to process it.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Can D correctly simulated by H terminate normally?
>>>
>>> Which again, isn't the question of the Halting Problem.
>>>
>>
>> Yet professor Sipser seems to agree is equivalent and several people on
>> this forum took to be a tautology, AKA necessarily true.
>
> Nope, you are just showing that you don't understand the meaning of the
> words you use.
>
> To anyone who understands the theory, your reference to "Correct
> Simulation" means the simulation by a UTM, i.e a simulaiton that exactly
> reproduces the behavior of the machine the input describes. If H can
> CORRECTLY determine that THAT simulation wouldn't halt (for exactly this
> input, the includes the H that does eventually abort its simulation and
> return 0) then H would be correct in aborting and returning zero.
>
> Since that doesn't actually happen for THIS H (which is the only one
> viewable in the problem) it can't use that excuse to be correct about
> aborting and returning 0.
>
> You seem to believe it is ok to reason from false premises, which seems
> to be why you lie so much.
>
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> The x86utm operating system based on an open source x86 emulator. This
>>>> system enables one C function to execute another C function in debug
>>>> step mode. When H simulates D it creates a separate process context for
>>>> D with its own memory, stack and virtual registers. H is able to
>>>> simulate D simulating itself, thus the only limit to recursive
>>>> simulations is RAM.
>>>>
>>>> // The following is written in C
>>>> //
>>>> 01 typedef int (*ptr)(); // pointer to int function
>>>> 02 int H(ptr x, ptr y) // uses x86 emulator to simulate its input
>>>> 03
>>>> 04 int D(ptr x)
>>>> 05 {
>>>> 06 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>>> 07 if (Halt_Status)
>>>> 08 HERE: goto HERE;
>>>> 09 return Halt_Status;
>>>> 10 }
>>>> 11
>>>> 12 void main()
>>>> 13 {
>>>> 14 H(D,D);
>>>> 15 }
>>>>
>>>> *Execution Trace*
>>>> Line 14: main() invokes H(D,D);
>>>>
>>>> *keeps repeating* (unless aborted)
>>>> Line 06: simulated D(D) invokes simulated H(D,D) that simulates D(D)
>>>>
>>>> *Simulation invariant*
>>>> D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own line 09.
>>>>
>>>> H correctly determines that D correctly simulated by H cannot
>>>> possibly terminate normally on the basis that H recognizes a dynamic
>>>> behavior pattern equivalent to infinite recursion.
>>>>
>>>> H outputs: "H: Infinitely Recursive Simulation Detected Simulation
>>>> Stopped" indicating that D has defined a pathological (see above)
>>>> relationship to H.
>>>>
>>>> The x86utm operating system (includes several termination analyzers)
>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm
>>>>
>>>> It compiles with the 2017 version of the Community Edition
>>>> https://visualstudio.microsoft.com/thank-you-downloading-visual-studio/?sku=Community&rel=15
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D*
>>>>
>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
>>>>
>>>
>>> So, you are just admitting that none of you work applies to the
>>> Halting Problem, but just your POOP which you are trying to make
>>> smell better by calling it (incorrectly) a Termination Analyzer.
>>>
>>
>> I am opening my work to the much broader field of termination analysis
>> where it is dead obvious that a termination analyzer is not allowed to
>> report on behavior that it can't see.
>
> But still try to claim it applies to the Halting Problem, thus you are
> just a liar.
>
> And "Termination Analysis" also looks at the behavior of the actual
> machine as the standard for decision. It may be that Termination
> analysis allows restrictions on the programs it will decide on, but the
> correct answer for any machine it does decide on is based on the actual
> behavior when run.
>
>>
>>> It isn't actually a "Termination Analyzer", because again, that
>>> theory taks about the behavior of the actual program, and not that of
>>> the decider, and the correct answer is if the actual program will
>>> terminate.
>>>
>>
>> No that is not the case with software engineering. With software
>> engineering it is understood that when D correctly simulated by H cannot
>> possibly reach its last instruction and terminate normally that D is
>> correctly determined to be non-halting. It is much more clear in
>> software engineering that H is not supposed to be clairvoyant.
>
> So, you are just admitting again that you aren't working on the actual
> Halting Problem of Computation Theory and just lying through your teeth
> why you say you have refuted the proof of that theorm
>
>>
>>> Since D(D) does terminate, you have shown that your POOP still
>>> stinks, and you just can't help but being a liar.
>>>
>>
>> If it absolutely true that D(D) does halt then H would never have to
>> abort its simulation of D. Because H must abort its simulation of D that
>> proves from the frame-of-reference of H that D does not halt.
>
> Which is a statement based on a LIE. Since H DOES abort its simulation,
> you can't talk about if H doesn't abort, the program that doesn't abort
> is not the H that D is based on, since it isn't the machine claimed to
> give the right answer.
>
> Thus, your "proof" is just lies and invalid logic.
>
>
>
>>
>> All this becomes moot when we understand that any input D to
>> termination analyzer H that does the opposite of whatever Boolean value
>> H returns is a contradictory thus semantically incorrect input.
>
> But not to a Halt Decider of Computability Thheory.
>
> I guess you don't understand what the word ALL means.
>
>>
>>> Sorry, you are just showing that you writing is just a mass of error
>>> and mistakes based on faulty assumptions resulting in erroneous answers.
>>>
>>> You can't seem to keep yourself from lying about what you are doing.
>>
>> If D actually does halt in an absolute sense then H would never need to
>> abort its simulation. Because H does need to abort its simulation then
>> from the frame-of-reference of H its input does not halt.
>>
>
> Right, H doesn't NEED to abort its simulation except for the fact that
> it was programmed to do so in error.
>
> H MUST do as programmed, so the whole idea of acting contrary to its
> programming is just invalid logic.
>
> This is what breaks all your logic, you assume the impossible can
> happen, and thus your whole system is based on false premises, and is
> thus just unsound.
>
--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
Back to sci.logic | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-22 20:27 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-22 22:25 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-22 22:16 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-23 00:32 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 00:06 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-23 08:11 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 10:39 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-23 16:46 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 16:05 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-23 17:26 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 16:41 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-23 18:48 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 18:08 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-23 19:42 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 19:03 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-23 20:16 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 19:32 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-23 20:55 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 20:16 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-23 21:32 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 20:46 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-23 22:14 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 21:44 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-24 07:16 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-24 08:53 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-24 11:13 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-24 10:57 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-24 12:37 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-24 12:01 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-24 13:29 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-24 12:42 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-24 14:19 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-24 14:22 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-24 15:31 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-24 15:10 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-24 16:24 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-24 15:35 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-24 16:41 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-24 15:59 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-24 17:08 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-24 16:39 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-24 19:02 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-24 18:11 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-24 19:51 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-24 22:24 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-25 07:33 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 16:52 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-26 19:18 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 19:05 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-26 20:20 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 20:13 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-26 22:13 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 22:34 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-27 07:52 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-27 11:27 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-27 19:02 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 07:53 -0700
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 11:46 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 09:49 -0700
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 12:19 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 10:22 -0700
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 12:37 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 17:15 -0500
csiph-web