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 | 2023-06-22 22:16 -0500 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <u732pk$3k3si$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | <u72sdf$3fl68$1@dont-email.me> <Jo7lM.69542$8uge.50240@fx14.iad> |
Cross-posted to 3 groups.
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.
You can either fail to comprehend this or pretend to fail to
comprehend this yet the actual facts remain unchanged.
>>
>> 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 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
--
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 comp.theory | 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
csiph-web