Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #103977 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-04-27 19:17 -0500 |
| Last post | 2024-04-29 09:10 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 353 — 9 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.theory
Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 19:17 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 20:49 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 19:58 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 21:39 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 20:54 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 22:09 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 21:33 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 23:31 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 22:45 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-28 09:13 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 08:45 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-28 10:00 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 09:15 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-28 13:34 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 12:55 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-28 14:18 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 13:23 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-28 14:42 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? POE olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 14:06 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? POE Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-28 15:29 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? POE olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 14:43 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? POE Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-28 19:07 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? POE olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 17:28 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? POE Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-28 19:01 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? POE olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 23:07 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? POE Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-29 07:25 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? POE olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-29 09:47 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? POE Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-29 19:19 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-28 14:25 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 13:33 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-28 14:44 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 14:00 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-28 15:14 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-28 11:30 +0300
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 08:06 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-28 09:14 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-28 11:23 +0300
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 07:56 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-28 09:19 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 08:52 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-28 11:08 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 10:33 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-28 12:08 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 12:50 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-28 14:06 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 13:19 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-28 14:39 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 13:52 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-28 15:18 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 14:26 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-28 15:36 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 14:48 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-28 19:05 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 22:48 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-29 07:25 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-29 09:51 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-29 19:19 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-30 01:07 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-30 07:33 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-30 10:55 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-30 18:46 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-30 22:56 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-01 07:23 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-01 11:11 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-01 20:10 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-01 21:59 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-01 23:50 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-01 23:02 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-02 00:06 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-01 23:13 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-02 00:17 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-18 09:11 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message-ID provided olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 11:24 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message-ID provided Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-18 12:49 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message-ID provided olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 12:20 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message-ID provided Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-18 13:40 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 13:54 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-18 15:15 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 14:24 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-18 15:42 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-18 15:18 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 14:28 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-18 15:42 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 14:57 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-18 16:02 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 16:00 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-18 18:22 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 17:44 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-18 19:06 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 18:24 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-18 19:38 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 22:59 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-19 14:16 +0200
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-19 08:06 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-20 06:37 +0200
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-20 00:17 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-20 10:37 +0200
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-20 10:32 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-20 20:57 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-20 07:24 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-20 13:17 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-20 20:57 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-19 08:14 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-19 13:17 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-20 11:01 +0200
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-20 10:18 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-20 20:57 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-19 13:17 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-19 14:46 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-19 19:31 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-20 13:28 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-20 20:57 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-21 06:50 +0200
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-21 00:05 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Message_ID Provided V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-19 19:06 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Message_ID Provided V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-19 21:10 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Message_ID Provided V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-19 21:52 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Message_ID Provided V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-19 23:11 -0400
Every D correctly simulated by H cannot possible reach its own line 06 and halt olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-19 22:22 -0500
Re: Every D correctly simulated by H cannot possible reach its own line 06 and halt Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-20 07:24 -0400
Re: Every D correctly simulated by H cannot possible reach its own line 06 and halt olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-20 13:03 -0500
Re: Every D correctly simulated by H cannot possible reach its own line 06 and halt Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-20 20:57 -0400
Re: Every D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own line 06 and halt olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-20 21:25 -0500
Re: Every D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own line 06 and halt Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-20 22:39 -0400
Re: Every D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own line 06 and halt olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-21 00:18 -0500
Re: Every D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own line 06 and halt Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-21 08:03 -0400
Re: Every D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own line 06 and halt olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-21 09:22 -0500
Re: Every D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own line 06 and halt Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-21 21:46 -0400
Re: Every D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own line 06 and halt olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-21 21:05 -0500
Re: Every D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own line 06 and halt Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-21 23:09 -0400
Re: Every D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own line 06 and halt olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-21 22:52 -0500
Re: Every D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own line 06 and halt Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-22 07:48 -0400
Every D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-22 10:41 -0500
Re: Every D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-22 19:01 -0400
Re: Every D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-22 21:15 -0500
Re: Every D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-22 22:36 -0400
Re: Every D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own line 06 and halt "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-22 09:52 +0200
Re: Every D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own line 06 and halt joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-22 10:26 +0000
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Message_ID Provided V2 immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-20 13:31 +0200
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Message_ID Provided V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-20 10:23 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Message_ID Provided V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-20 20:57 -0400
Every D correctly simulated by H cannot possible reach its own line 06 and halt olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-19 22:09 -0500
Re: Every D correctly simulated by H cannot possible reach its own line 06 and halt Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-19 23:24 -0400
Re: Every D correctly simulated by H cannot possible reach its own line 06 and halt olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-19 22:32 -0500
Re: Every D correctly simulated by H cannot possible reach its own line 06 and halt Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-20 07:24 -0400
Re: Every D correctly simulated by H cannot possible reach its own line 06 and halt olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-20 13:01 -0500
Re: Every D correctly simulated by H cannot possible reach its own line 06 and halt Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-20 20:57 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-29 16:44 +0300
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-29 09:20 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-30 13:27 +0300
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-30 10:50 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-30 18:46 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-30 23:19 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-01 09:42 +0000
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-01 10:26 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-01 20:16 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2024-05-01 18:44 -0600
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-01 21:13 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-01 20:44 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2024-05-01 20:30 -0600
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-01 22:55 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-01 22:03 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-01 23:54 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-01 07:23 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-01 11:26 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-01 20:25 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-01 22:12 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-01 23:54 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-01 23:08 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-01 12:51 +0300
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-01 10:51 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-01 20:28 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-01 22:16 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-01 23:50 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-01 23:04 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-02 00:10 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-01 23:24 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-02 07:04 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-02 13:48 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-02 21:48 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-03 07:17 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-03 22:12 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-01 23:21 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-02 07:03 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-02 13:46 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-02 21:48 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-03 07:22 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2024-05-03 18:15 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-01 23:23 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-01 23:27 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-02 07:04 -0400
Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 10:42 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-14 22:15 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-04-29 14:37 +0000
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-29 09:56 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-04-29 15:23 +0000
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-29 10:50 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-04-29 16:17 +0000
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-29 12:31 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-04-29 18:19 +0000
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-29 14:04 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-04-30 10:46 +0200
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-30 10:18 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-04-30 17:37 +0200
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-30 11:10 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-04-30 18:24 +0200
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-30 11:27 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-04-30 19:38 +0200
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-30 13:26 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-01 11:02 +0200
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-01 10:20 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-02 17:10 +0200
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-02 13:42 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-04-30 15:44 +0000
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-30 11:15 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-04-30 16:46 +0000
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-30 13:24 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-01 10:01 +0000
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-01 10:34 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-01 20:31 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-01 22:22 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-01 23:53 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-01 23:07 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-02 00:13 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-02 12:16 +0300
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-02 09:50 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-02 21:48 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-03 07:36 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-03 22:09 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-04 12:23 +0300
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 08:49 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 13:50 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-05 11:01 +0300
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 09:28 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 12:55 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 12:38 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 14:15 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-06 18:05 +0300
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 11:02 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 22:20 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-03 12:17 +0300
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-03 06:40 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-03 22:10 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-04 12:26 +0300
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 08:51 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 12:00 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-05 11:08 +0300
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 09:32 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-06 18:08 +0300
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-02 09:29 +0000
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-02 13:05 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-02 21:49 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-03 07:40 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-03 23:33 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-02 21:49 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-03 07:52 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-03 22:19 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-02 14:52 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-30 18:46 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-30 23:28 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-01 07:23 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-01 11:32 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-01 20:36 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-01 22:26 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-01 23:56 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-01 22:59 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-02 00:08 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-02 09:39 +0000
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-02 13:35 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-02 21:48 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-03 07:25 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-03 19:30 +0000
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-03 16:26 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-03 22:35 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-03 22:29 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-03 12:33 +0300
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-03 06:55 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-03 13:40 +0000
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-03 08:47 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-03 22:41 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-03 22:38 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-04 12:47 +0300
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 08:56 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 12:07 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-05 11:14 +0300
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 09:38 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-05 17:07 +0000
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 12:43 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 14:20 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-06 18:16 +0300
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-07 03:37 +0200
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-02 09:07 +0000
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-02 12:45 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-02 21:51 +0000
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-02 16:55 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-02 21:48 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-03 07:27 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-03 22:42 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-02 17:10 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-29 14:31 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 13:54 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-28 15:23 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 13:58 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-28 15:25 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 14:35 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-28 15:45 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 14:51 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-28 19:07 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 22:58 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-29 07:24 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-29 09:43 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-29 19:19 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-30 00:54 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-30 13:22 +0300
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-30 10:45 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-01 13:03 +0300
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-01 11:00 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-02 12:00 +0300
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-02 09:43 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-03 12:43 +0300
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-03 07:13 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-03 14:08 +0000
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-03 09:34 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-03 19:33 +0000
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-03 14:43 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-03 15:08 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-03 23:09 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-03 19:10 +0000
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-03 16:22 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 08:43 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-03 23:07 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-03 23:20 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 08:53 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-03 22:54 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-04 13:10 +0300
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 08:59 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 13:51 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-02 15:13 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-30 07:40 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-30 10:58 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-30 18:46 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-30 23:11 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-01 07:23 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-01 11:06 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-01 20:41 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-01 22:29 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-01 23:59 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-01 23:09 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-02 00:15 -0400
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-29 15:27 +0300
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-29 09:14 -0500
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-29 15:22 +0300
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-29 09:10 -0500
Page 8 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 18 Next page →
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-20 20:57 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Message_ID Provided V2 |
| Message-ID | <v2grhv$1kiah$8@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #105290 |
On 5/20/24 11:23 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/20/2024 6:31 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 20/05/24 05:11, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> Nope. Make a claim, you need to prove it.
>>
>> You just made a claim. Prove that he needs to prove it.
>
> I cannot prove verified facts to liars or to people having insufficient
> knowledge of the semantics of the C programming language.
Since it is an UTTER LIE that we do not have a sufficient knowledge of
the semantic of the C programming langage.
It is clear the issue is that YOU have an insufficient knowledge of
logic to be able to actually form a real proof of anything of imporanace.
I seem to remember you giving up on your Turing Machine lessons when you
were asked to show a Turing Machie for a simple decision problem. That
reveals you logical intelegence.
>
> The halt status of the following C functions is entirely self-evident
> to anyone having sufficient knowledge of the semantics of the C
> programming language.
SO, STRAWMEN. The fact that you resort to them just proves your
incompentance.
>
> void Infinite_Recursion(u32 N)
> {
> Infinite_Recursion(N);
> }
>
> int factorial(int n) // called with 5
> {
> if (n >= 1)
> return n*factorial(n-1);
> else
> return 1;
> }
>
> void Infinite_Loop()
> {
> HERE: goto HERE;
> }
>
> void This_Halts()
> {
> return;
> }
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-19 22:09 -0500 |
| Subject | Every D correctly simulated by H cannot possible reach its own line 06 and halt |
| Message-ID | <v2eet5$3pl2i$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #105264 |
On 5/19/2024 8:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/19/24 8:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/1/2024 7:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>> typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function
>> 00 int H(ptr p, ptr i);
>> 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 }
>> 08
>> 09 int main()
>> 10 {
>> 11 H(D,D);
>> 12 return 0;
>> 13 }
>>
>> In the above case a simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly
>> emulates at least one of the x86 instructions of D in the order
>> specified by the x86 instructions of D.
>>
>> This may include correctly emulating the x86 instructions of H in the
>> order specified by the x86 instructions of H thus calling H(D,D) in
>> recursive simulation.
>>
>> For every H/D pair of the above template D correctly simulated by
>> *pure function* H cannot possibly reach its own final state at
>> line 06 and halt.
>>
>
> Ok, so adding that H is a pure function, that means that since your
> outer H(D,D) is going to return 0, all logic must be compatible with the
> fact that EVERY call to H(D,D) will also eventually return 0.
>
>
> Remember also, THIS D is defined to call THIS H, that does exactly the
> same as the H that is deciding it.
>
>>
>> <snip so that Message ID links to whole message>
>> We can use my unique time/date stamp as an alternative.
>>
>>> Remember, YOU are the one saying you are needing to change the
>>> definition from the classical theory, where we have things well defined.
>>>
>>> YOU have decider that H is just whatever C code you want to write for
>>> it, and D is the input proved. (which doesn't actually match the Linz
>>> or Sipser proof, but fairly close).
>>>
>>> With THAT set of definitions we have a lot of options that break your
>>> incorrectly assumed results.
>>>
>>> The first method has been discussed here by Flibble. While the final
>>> answer he got to doesn't fit the requirements, the first part of the
>>> method DOES show that it is possible for an H to simulate to past
>>> line 3.
>>>
>>> THe basic idea is that if H(M,d) finds that its simulation of M(d)
>>> get to a call to H(M,d) then rather that your idea of just saying it
>>> will get stuck and declair the input invalid, since there ARE a
>>> number of possible inputs that there is a "correct" answer that H can
>>> give to
>>
>> That D is calling H does not prove recursive simulation.
>> That D is calling H with its same parameters does seem
>> to prove non-halting recursive simulation.
>
> Nope. Try to actuall PROVE it.
I am using categorically exhaustive reasoning that can work
through every possibility that can possibly exist in a feasible
amount of time as long as the category is very very narrow.
Enlarge the category a tiny little bit and then the time
becomes infeasible.
The tiniest little divergence from the title of this
thread and I totally ignore and erase everything else
that you say.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-19 23:24 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Every D correctly simulated by H cannot possible reach its own line 06 and halt |
| Message-ID | <v2efoi$1g2n9$15@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #105266 |
On 5/19/24 11:09 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/19/2024 8:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/19/24 8:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/1/2024 7:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>> typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function
>>> 00 int H(ptr p, ptr i);
>>> 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 }
>>> 08
>>> 09 int main()
>>> 10 {
>>> 11 H(D,D);
>>> 12 return 0;
>>> 13 }
>>>
>>> In the above case a simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly
>>> emulates at least one of the x86 instructions of D in the order
>>> specified by the x86 instructions of D.
>>>
>>> This may include correctly emulating the x86 instructions of H in the
>>> order specified by the x86 instructions of H thus calling H(D,D) in
>>> recursive simulation.
>>>
>>> For every H/D pair of the above template D correctly simulated by
>>> *pure function* H cannot possibly reach its own final state at
>>> line 06 and halt.
>>>
>>
>> Ok, so adding that H is a pure function, that means that since your
>> outer H(D,D) is going to return 0, all logic must be compatible with
>> the fact that EVERY call to H(D,D) will also eventually return 0.
>>
>>
>> Remember also, THIS D is defined to call THIS H, that does exactly the
>> same as the H that is deciding it.
>>
>>>
>>> <snip so that Message ID links to whole message>
>>> We can use my unique time/date stamp as an alternative.
>>>
>>>> Remember, YOU are the one saying you are needing to change the
>>>> definition from the classical theory, where we have things well
>>>> defined.
>>>>
>>>> YOU have decider that H is just whatever C code you want to write
>>>> for it, and D is the input proved. (which doesn't actually match the
>>>> Linz or Sipser proof, but fairly close).
>>>>
>>>> With THAT set of definitions we have a lot of options that break
>>>> your incorrectly assumed results.
>>>>
>>>> The first method has been discussed here by Flibble. While the final
>>>> answer he got to doesn't fit the requirements, the first part of the
>>>> method DOES show that it is possible for an H to simulate to past
>>>> line 3.
>>>>
>>>> THe basic idea is that if H(M,d) finds that its simulation of M(d)
>>>> get to a call to H(M,d) then rather that your idea of just saying it
>>>> will get stuck and declair the input invalid, since there ARE a
>>>> number of possible inputs that there is a "correct" answer that H
>>>> can give to
>>>
>>> That D is calling H does not prove recursive simulation.
>>> That D is calling H with its same parameters does seem
>>> to prove non-halting recursive simulation.
>>
>> Nope. Try to actuall PROVE it.
>
> I am using categorically exhaustive reasoning that can work
> through every possibility that can possibly exist in a feasible
> amount of time as long as the category is very very narrow.
What "Category", we have a specified H and an SPECIFIED D.
The question is not, can H simulate D to the end, the question is does D
halt.
IF you are going to try to use a "Categorical exhaustive reasoning" you
need to actually DEFINE the category, and what you are going to try to
exhaustively search.
>
> Enlarge the category a tiny little bit and then the time
> becomes infeasible.
And if you are going to argue that "No H" can do something, that only
applies if you allow for all H.
Your making H a set of pure functions limits the set of machines to not
ve able to actually look at a useful category.
Remember, simulating a machine for a finite number of steps and then
aborting doesn't prove the machine is non-halting.
>
> The tiniest little divergence from the title of this
> thread and I totally ignore and erase everything else
> that you say.
>
Then why did you diverge from your problem statment.
You have gone back to using "Halting" terminology, so you are clearly
looking at halting which is not proven by just the behavior of an
aborted simulation.
The problem is that we are now looking at the behavior of THIS D, so
your category might be looking at different H's looking at THIS D (which
calls that original H).
You seem to want to send a lot of time looking at the wiring of the 10
story office building to answer the question about cats.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-19 22:32 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Every D correctly simulated by H cannot possible reach its own line 06 and halt |
| Message-ID | <v2eg8o$3q3cl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #105269 |
On 5/19/2024 10:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/19/24 11:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/19/2024 8:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/19/24 8:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/1/2024 7:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function
>>>> 00 int H(ptr p, ptr i);
>>>> 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 }
>>>> 08
>>>> 09 int main()
>>>> 10 {
>>>> 11 H(D,D);
>>>> 12 return 0;
>>>> 13 }
>>>>
>>>> In the above case a simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly
>>>> emulates at least one of the x86 instructions of D in the order
>>>> specified by the x86 instructions of D.
>>>>
>>>> This may include correctly emulating the x86 instructions of H in
>>>> the order specified by the x86 instructions of H thus calling H(D,D)
>>>> in recursive simulation.
>>>>
>>>> For every H/D pair of the above template D correctly simulated by
>>>> *pure function* H cannot possibly reach its own final state at
>>>> line 06 and halt.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ok, so adding that H is a pure function, that means that since your
>>> outer H(D,D) is going to return 0, all logic must be compatible with
>>> the fact that EVERY call to H(D,D) will also eventually return 0.
>>>
>>>
>>> Remember also, THIS D is defined to call THIS H, that does exactly
>>> the same as the H that is deciding it.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> <snip so that Message ID links to whole message>
>>>> We can use my unique time/date stamp as an alternative.
>>>>
>>>>> Remember, YOU are the one saying you are needing to change the
>>>>> definition from the classical theory, where we have things well
>>>>> defined.
>>>>>
>>>>> YOU have decider that H is just whatever C code you want to write
>>>>> for it, and D is the input proved. (which doesn't actually match
>>>>> the Linz or Sipser proof, but fairly close).
>>>>>
>>>>> With THAT set of definitions we have a lot of options that break
>>>>> your incorrectly assumed results.
>>>>>
>>>>> The first method has been discussed here by Flibble. While the
>>>>> final answer he got to doesn't fit the requirements, the first part
>>>>> of the method DOES show that it is possible for an H to simulate to
>>>>> past line 3.
>>>>>
>>>>> THe basic idea is that if H(M,d) finds that its simulation of M(d)
>>>>> get to a call to H(M,d) then rather that your idea of just saying
>>>>> it will get stuck and declair the input invalid, since there ARE a
>>>>> number of possible inputs that there is a "correct" answer that H
>>>>> can give to
>>>>
>>>> That D is calling H does not prove recursive simulation.
>>>> That D is calling H with its same parameters does seem
>>>> to prove non-halting recursive simulation.
>>>
>>> Nope. Try to actuall PROVE it.
>>
>> I am using categorically exhaustive reasoning that can work
>> through every possibility that can possibly exist in a feasible
>> amount of time as long as the category is very very narrow.
>
> What "Category", we have a specified H and an SPECIFIED D.
>
> The question is not, can H simulate D to the end, the question is does D
> halt.
>
*The subject is in the subject line you diverged, please try again*
*The subject is in the subject line you diverged, please try again*
*The subject is in the subject line you diverged, please try again*
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-20 07:24 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Every D correctly simulated by H cannot possible reach its own line 06 and halt |
| Message-ID | <v2fbtn$1g2n8$9@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #105270 |
On 5/19/24 11:32 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/19/2024 10:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/19/24 11:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/19/2024 8:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/19/24 8:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/1/2024 7:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function
>>>>> 00 int H(ptr p, ptr i);
>>>>> 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 }
>>>>> 08
>>>>> 09 int main()
>>>>> 10 {
>>>>> 11 H(D,D);
>>>>> 12 return 0;
>>>>> 13 }
>>>>>
>>>>> In the above case a simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly
>>>>> emulates at least one of the x86 instructions of D in the order
>>>>> specified by the x86 instructions of D.
>>>>>
>>>>> This may include correctly emulating the x86 instructions of H in
>>>>> the order specified by the x86 instructions of H thus calling
>>>>> H(D,D) in recursive simulation.
>>>>>
>>>>> For every H/D pair of the above template D correctly simulated by
>>>>> *pure function* H cannot possibly reach its own final state at
>>>>> line 06 and halt.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ok, so adding that H is a pure function, that means that since your
>>>> outer H(D,D) is going to return 0, all logic must be compatible with
>>>> the fact that EVERY call to H(D,D) will also eventually return 0.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Remember also, THIS D is defined to call THIS H, that does exactly
>>>> the same as the H that is deciding it.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip so that Message ID links to whole message>
>>>>> We can use my unique time/date stamp as an alternative.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Remember, YOU are the one saying you are needing to change the
>>>>>> definition from the classical theory, where we have things well
>>>>>> defined.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> YOU have decider that H is just whatever C code you want to write
>>>>>> for it, and D is the input proved. (which doesn't actually match
>>>>>> the Linz or Sipser proof, but fairly close).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With THAT set of definitions we have a lot of options that break
>>>>>> your incorrectly assumed results.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The first method has been discussed here by Flibble. While the
>>>>>> final answer he got to doesn't fit the requirements, the first
>>>>>> part of the method DOES show that it is possible for an H to
>>>>>> simulate to past line 3.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> THe basic idea is that if H(M,d) finds that its simulation of M(d)
>>>>>> get to a call to H(M,d) then rather that your idea of just saying
>>>>>> it will get stuck and declair the input invalid, since there ARE a
>>>>>> number of possible inputs that there is a "correct" answer that H
>>>>>> can give to
>>>>>
>>>>> That D is calling H does not prove recursive simulation.
>>>>> That D is calling H with its same parameters does seem
>>>>> to prove non-halting recursive simulation.
>>>>
>>>> Nope. Try to actuall PROVE it.
>>>
>>> I am using categorically exhaustive reasoning that can work
>>> through every possibility that can possibly exist in a feasible
>>> amount of time as long as the category is very very narrow.
>>
>> What "Category", we have a specified H and an SPECIFIED D.
>>
>> The question is not, can H simulate D to the end, the question is does
>> D halt.
>>
>
> *The subject is in the subject line you diverged, please try again*
> *The subject is in the subject line you diverged, please try again*
> *The subject is in the subject line you diverged, please try again*
>
And since YOU brought up the diversion, I just asked you to define it.
After all, who cares about all the other programs you are deceptively
calling D and H, when the actual problem you have admitted you want to
get to does care about it.
You should be happy that we want to keep you from wasting time on side
issues that don't matter.
You say you are preparing to do a "Categorically Exhaustive Reasoning",
but it seems you can't define what "Category" you are look at, and what
goal you are seeking to obtain.
Since you have PROVEN that what you think is "Self-Evident" isn't,
because you come in with false ideas and unstated assumptions, you
should be willing to accept help keeping you onto your real task.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-20 13:01 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Every D correctly simulated by H cannot possible reach its own line 06 and halt |
| Message-ID | <v2g35j$3ugq$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #105282 |
On 5/20/2024 6:24 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/19/24 11:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/19/2024 10:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/19/24 11:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/19/2024 8:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/19/24 8:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/1/2024 7:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function
>>>>>> 00 int H(ptr p, ptr i);
>>>>>> 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 }
>>>>>> 08
>>>>>> 09 int main()
>>>>>> 10 {
>>>>>> 11 H(D,D);
>>>>>> 12 return 0;
>>>>>> 13 }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the above case a simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly
>>>>>> emulates at least one of the x86 instructions of D in the order
>>>>>> specified by the x86 instructions of D.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This may include correctly emulating the x86 instructions of H in
>>>>>> the order specified by the x86 instructions of H thus calling
>>>>>> H(D,D) in recursive simulation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For every H/D pair of the above template D correctly simulated by
>>>>>> *pure function* H cannot possibly reach its own final state at
>>>>>> line 06 and halt.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok, so adding that H is a pure function, that means that since your
>>>>> outer H(D,D) is going to return 0, all logic must be compatible
>>>>> with the fact that EVERY call to H(D,D) will also eventually return 0.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Remember also, THIS D is defined to call THIS H, that does exactly
>>>>> the same as the H that is deciding it.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <snip so that Message ID links to whole message>
>>>>>> We can use my unique time/date stamp as an alternative.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Remember, YOU are the one saying you are needing to change the
>>>>>>> definition from the classical theory, where we have things well
>>>>>>> defined.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> YOU have decider that H is just whatever C code you want to write
>>>>>>> for it, and D is the input proved. (which doesn't actually match
>>>>>>> the Linz or Sipser proof, but fairly close).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> With THAT set of definitions we have a lot of options that break
>>>>>>> your incorrectly assumed results.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The first method has been discussed here by Flibble. While the
>>>>>>> final answer he got to doesn't fit the requirements, the first
>>>>>>> part of the method DOES show that it is possible for an H to
>>>>>>> simulate to past line 3.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> THe basic idea is that if H(M,d) finds that its simulation of
>>>>>>> M(d) get to a call to H(M,d) then rather that your idea of just
>>>>>>> saying it will get stuck and declair the input invalid, since
>>>>>>> there ARE a number of possible inputs that there is a "correct"
>>>>>>> answer that H can give to
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That D is calling H does not prove recursive simulation.
>>>>>> That D is calling H with its same parameters does seem
>>>>>> to prove non-halting recursive simulation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope. Try to actuall PROVE it.
>>>>
>>>> I am using categorically exhaustive reasoning that can work
>>>> through every possibility that can possibly exist in a feasible
>>>> amount of time as long as the category is very very narrow.
>>>
>>> What "Category", we have a specified H and an SPECIFIED D.
>>>
>>> The question is not, can H simulate D to the end, the question is
>>> does D halt.
>>>
>>
>> *The subject is in the subject line you diverged, please try again*
>> *The subject is in the subject line you diverged, please try again*
>> *The subject is in the subject line you diverged, please try again*
>>
>
> And since YOU brought up the diversion, I just asked you to define it.
>
typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function
00 int H(ptr p, ptr i);
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 }
08
09 int main()
10 {
11 H(D,D);
12 return 0;
13 }
In the above case a simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly emulates
at least one of the x86 instructions of D in the order specified by the
x86 instructions of D.
This may include correctly emulating the x86 instructions of H in the
order specified by the x86 instructions of H thus calling H(D,D) in
recursive simulation.
Execution Trace
Line 11: main() invokes H(D,D);
keeps repeating (unless aborted)
Line 01:
Line 02:
Line 03: simulated D(D) invokes simulated H(D,D) that simulates D(D)
Simulation invariant:
D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.
For every H/D pair of the above template D correctly simulated by pure
function (thus computable function) H cannot possibly reach its own
final state at line 06 and halt.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-20 20:57 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Every D correctly simulated by H cannot possible reach its own line 06 and halt |
| Message-ID | <v2grht$1kiah$7@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #105298 |
On 5/20/24 2:01 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/20/2024 6:24 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/19/24 11:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/19/2024 10:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/19/24 11:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/19/2024 8:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/19/24 8:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/1/2024 7:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function
>>>>>>> 00 int H(ptr p, ptr i);
>>>>>>> 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 }
>>>>>>> 08
>>>>>>> 09 int main()
>>>>>>> 10 {
>>>>>>> 11 H(D,D);
>>>>>>> 12 return 0;
>>>>>>> 13 }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the above case a simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly
>>>>>>> emulates at least one of the x86 instructions of D in the order
>>>>>>> specified by the x86 instructions of D.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This may include correctly emulating the x86 instructions of H in
>>>>>>> the order specified by the x86 instructions of H thus calling
>>>>>>> H(D,D) in recursive simulation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For every H/D pair of the above template D correctly simulated by
>>>>>>> *pure function* H cannot possibly reach its own final state at
>>>>>>> line 06 and halt.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ok, so adding that H is a pure function, that means that since
>>>>>> your outer H(D,D) is going to return 0, all logic must be
>>>>>> compatible with the fact that EVERY call to H(D,D) will also
>>>>>> eventually return 0.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Remember also, THIS D is defined to call THIS H, that does exactly
>>>>>> the same as the H that is deciding it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <snip so that Message ID links to whole message>
>>>>>>> We can use my unique time/date stamp as an alternative.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Remember, YOU are the one saying you are needing to change the
>>>>>>>> definition from the classical theory, where we have things well
>>>>>>>> defined.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> YOU have decider that H is just whatever C code you want to
>>>>>>>> write for it, and D is the input proved. (which doesn't actually
>>>>>>>> match the Linz or Sipser proof, but fairly close).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> With THAT set of definitions we have a lot of options that break
>>>>>>>> your incorrectly assumed results.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The first method has been discussed here by Flibble. While the
>>>>>>>> final answer he got to doesn't fit the requirements, the first
>>>>>>>> part of the method DOES show that it is possible for an H to
>>>>>>>> simulate to past line 3.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> THe basic idea is that if H(M,d) finds that its simulation of
>>>>>>>> M(d) get to a call to H(M,d) then rather that your idea of just
>>>>>>>> saying it will get stuck and declair the input invalid, since
>>>>>>>> there ARE a number of possible inputs that there is a "correct"
>>>>>>>> answer that H can give to
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That D is calling H does not prove recursive simulation.
>>>>>>> That D is calling H with its same parameters does seem
>>>>>>> to prove non-halting recursive simulation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope. Try to actuall PROVE it.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am using categorically exhaustive reasoning that can work
>>>>> through every possibility that can possibly exist in a feasible
>>>>> amount of time as long as the category is very very narrow.
>>>>
>>>> What "Category", we have a specified H and an SPECIFIED D.
>>>>
>>>> The question is not, can H simulate D to the end, the question is
>>>> does D halt.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *The subject is in the subject line you diverged, please try again*
>>> *The subject is in the subject line you diverged, please try again*
>>> *The subject is in the subject line you diverged, please try again*
>>>
>>
>> And since YOU brought up the diversion, I just asked you to define it.
>>
>
> typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function
> 00 int H(ptr p, ptr i);
> 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 }
> 08
> 09 int main()
> 10 {
> 11 H(D,D);
> 12 return 0;
> 13 }
>
> In the above case a simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly emulates
> at least one of the x86 instructions of D in the order specified by the
> x86 instructions of D.
>
> This may include correctly emulating the x86 instructions of H in the
> order specified by the x86 instructions of H thus calling H(D,D) in
> recursive simulation.
>
> Execution Trace
> Line 11: main() invokes H(D,D);
>
> keeps repeating (unless aborted)
> Line 01:
> Line 02:
> Line 03: simulated D(D) invokes simulated H(D,D) that simulates D(D)
>
> Simulation invariant:
> D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.
>
> For every H/D pair of the above template D correctly simulated by pure
> function (thus computable function) H cannot possibly reach its own
> final state at line 06 and halt.
>
But a computable function is not a pure function, and the comparion is
just a type error.
A "Computable Function" as a mathematic concept which represent a
mathematical mapping of input to output.
Your program is the "algorith" that computes that mapping. It is NOT the
mapping itself.
And, the "Flibble" structure can correctly simulate the code in D (given
the assumption that you can detect D calling H(D,D) like you H does) to
the point of determing that there is no answer that H can give to be
correct. It thus can handle the non-contradictory version of D, that
your H will just give up on.
Your H deteremines that YOUR H doesn't halt, so proves that it can't be
a halt decider. (Either H doesn't actually halt, or it lies and gives
the wrong answer).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-29 16:44 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <v0o87n$1p7s5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104029 |
On 2024-04-28 18:52:06 +0000, olcott said: > On 4/28/2024 1:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 4/28/24 2:19 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 4/28/2024 1:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 4/28/24 1:50 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 4/28/2024 11:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 4/28/24 11:33 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 4/28/2024 10:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 4/28/24 9:52 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 4/28/2024 8:19 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/24 8:56 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/2024 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-28 00:17:48 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Can D simulated by H terminate normally? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> One should not that "D simulated by H" is not the same as >>>>>>>>>>>> "simulation of D by H". The message below seems to be more >>>>>>>>>>>> about the latter than the former. In any case, it is more >>>>>>>>>>>> about the properties of H than about the properties of D. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> D specifies what is essentially infinite recursion to H. >>>>>>>>>>> Several people agreed that D simulated by H cannot possibly >>>>>>>>>>> reach past its own line 03 no matter what H does. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Nope, it is only that if H fails to be a decider. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *We don't make this leap of logic. I never used the term decider* >>>>>>>>> *We don't make this leap of logic. I never used the term decider* >>>>>>>>> *We don't make this leap of logic. I never used the term decider* >>>>>>>>> *We don't make this leap of logic. I never used the term decider* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You admit that people see that as being a claim about the Halting >>>>>>>> Problem, and thus the implied definitons of the terms apply. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The only way to get people to understand that I am correct >>>>>>> and thus not always ignore my words and leap to the conclusion >>>>>>> that I must be wrong is to insist that they review every single >>>>>>> detail of all of my reasoning one tiny step at a time. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> No, the way to get people to understand what you are saying is to use >>>>>> the standard terminology, and start with what people will accept and >>>>>> move to what is harder to understand. >>>>>> >>>>>> People have no obligation to work in the direction you want them to. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, when you speak non-sense, people will ignore you, because what you >>>>>> speak is non-sense. >>>>>> >>>>>> You are just proving that you don't understand how to perform logic, or >>>>>> frame a persuasive arguement. >>>>>> >>>>>> That fact that as far as we can tell, your "logic" is based on you >>>>>> making up things and trying to form justifications for them, just makes >>>>>> people unwilling to attempt to "accept" your wild ideas to see what >>>>>> might make sense. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Linguistic determinism is the concept that language and its structures >>>>> limit and determine human knowledge or thought, as well as thought >>>>> processes such as categorization, memory, and perception. >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_determinism >>>> >>>> So? Since formal logic isn't based on Linguistics, it doesn't directly >>>> impact it. IT might limit the forms we >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Some of the technical "terms of the art" box people into misconceptions >>>>> for which there is no escape. Some of the technical "terms of the art" >>>>> I perfectly agree with. >>>>> >>>>> *Important technical "term of the art" that I totally agree with* >>>>> Computable functions are the formalized analogue of the intuitive notion >>>>> of algorithms, in the sense that a function is computable if there >>>>> exists an algorithm that can do the job of the function, i.e. given an >>>>> input of the function domain it can return the corresponding output. >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function >>>> >>>> But you seem to miss that Halting isn't a "Computable Function", as >>>> Turing Proved. >>>> >>> >>> Even the term "halting" is problematic. >>> For 15 years I thought it means stops running for any reason. >> >> And that shows your STUPIDITY, not an error in the Theory. >> >>> Now I know that it means reaches the final state. Half the >>> people here may not know that. >> >> No, I suspect most of the people here are smarter than that. >> > > Yet again only rhetoric wit no actual reasoning. > Do you believe: > (a) Halting means stopping for any reason. > (b) Halting means reaching a final state. > (c) Neither. The simplest way to define halting is (s): neither. Instead, it means that it is not possible to continue the computation to an infinite number of steps. It is also clearer if this definition only defines "a halting complutation" but leaves other uses of "halting" undefined. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-29 09:20 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v0oab4$1pbn5$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104063 |
On 4/29/2024 8:44 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-04-28 18:52:06 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> On 4/28/2024 1:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 4/28/24 2:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/28/2024 1:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 4/28/24 1:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/28/2024 11:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/28/24 11:33 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/28/2024 10:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/24 9:52 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/2024 8:19 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/24 8:56 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/2024 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-28 00:17:48 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can D simulated by H terminate normally?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> One should not that "D simulated by H" is not the same as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "simulation of D by H". The message below seems to be more
>>>>>>>>>>>>> about the latter than the former. In any case, it is more
>>>>>>>>>>>>> about the properties of H than about the properties of D.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> D specifies what is essentially infinite recursion to H.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Several people agreed that D simulated by H cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>> reach past its own line 03 no matter what H does.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, it is only that if H fails to be a decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *We don't make this leap of logic. I never used the term decider*
>>>>>>>>>> *We don't make this leap of logic. I never used the term decider*
>>>>>>>>>> *We don't make this leap of logic. I never used the term decider*
>>>>>>>>>> *We don't make this leap of logic. I never used the term decider*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You admit that people see that as being a claim about the
>>>>>>>>> Halting Problem, and thus the implied definitons of the terms
>>>>>>>>> apply.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The only way to get people to understand that I am correct
>>>>>>>> and thus not always ignore my words and leap to the conclusion
>>>>>>>> that I must be wrong is to insist that they review every single
>>>>>>>> detail of all of my reasoning one tiny step at a time.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, the way to get people to understand what you are saying is to
>>>>>>> use the standard terminology, and start with what people will
>>>>>>> accept and move to what is harder to understand.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> People have no obligation to work in the direction you want them to.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, when you speak non-sense, people will ignore you, because
>>>>>>> what you speak is non-sense.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are just proving that you don't understand how to perform
>>>>>>> logic, or frame a persuasive arguement.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That fact that as far as we can tell, your "logic" is based on
>>>>>>> you making up things and trying to form justifications for them,
>>>>>>> just makes people unwilling to attempt to "accept" your wild
>>>>>>> ideas to see what might make sense.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Linguistic determinism is the concept that language and its
>>>>>> structures
>>>>>> limit and determine human knowledge or thought, as well as thought
>>>>>> processes such as categorization, memory, and perception.
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_determinism
>>>>>
>>>>> So? Since formal logic isn't based on Linguistics, it doesn't
>>>>> directly impact it. IT might limit the forms we
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some of the technical "terms of the art" box people into
>>>>>> misconceptions
>>>>>> for which there is no escape. Some of the technical "terms of the
>>>>>> art"
>>>>>> I perfectly agree with.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Important technical "term of the art" that I totally agree with*
>>>>>> Computable functions are the formalized analogue of the intuitive
>>>>>> notion
>>>>>> of algorithms, in the sense that a function is computable if there
>>>>>> exists an algorithm that can do the job of the function, i.e.
>>>>>> given an
>>>>>> input of the function domain it can return the corresponding
>>>>>> output. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function
>>>>>
>>>>> But you seem to miss that Halting isn't a "Computable Function", as
>>>>> Turing Proved.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Even the term "halting" is problematic.
>>>> For 15 years I thought it means stops running for any reason.
>>>
>>> And that shows your STUPIDITY, not an error in the Theory.
>>>
>>>> Now I know that it means reaches the final state. Half the
>>>> people here may not know that.
>>>
>>> No, I suspect most of the people here are smarter than that.
>>>
>>
>> Yet again only rhetoric wit no actual reasoning.
>> Do you believe:
>> (a) Halting means stopping for any reason.
>> (b) Halting means reaching a final state.
>> (c) Neither.
>
> The simplest way to define halting is (s): neither. Instead, it means
> that it is not possible to continue the computation to an infinite
> number of steps.
>
Wrong answer.
computation that halts… “the Turing machine will halt whenever it enters
a final state” (Linz:1990:234)
[5] Linz, Peter 1990. An Introduction to Formal Languages and Automata.
Lexington/Toronto: D. C. Heath and Company. (317-320)
Can D correctly simulated by H terminate normally?
00 int H(ptr x, ptr x) // ptr is pointer to int function
01 int D(ptr x)
02 {
03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
04 if (Halt_Status)
05 HERE: goto HERE;
06 return Halt_Status;
07 }
08
09 void main()
10 {
11 H(D,D);
12 }
Execution Trace
Line 11: main() invokes H(D,D);
keeps repeating (unless aborted)
Line 03: simulated D(D) invokes simulated H(D,D) that simulates D(D)
Simulation invariant:
D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-30 13:27 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <v0qh21$2df66$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104066 |
On 2024-04-29 14:20:20 +0000, olcott said: > On 4/29/2024 8:44 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2024-04-28 18:52:06 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> On 4/28/2024 1:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 4/28/24 2:19 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 4/28/2024 1:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 4/28/24 1:50 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 4/28/2024 11:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 4/28/24 11:33 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 4/28/2024 10:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/24 9:52 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/2024 8:19 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/24 8:56 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/2024 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-28 00:17:48 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can D simulated by H terminate normally? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> One should not that "D simulated by H" is not the same as >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "simulation of D by H". The message below seems to be more >>>>>>>>>>>>>> about the latter than the former. In any case, it is more >>>>>>>>>>>>>> about the properties of H than about the properties of D. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> D specifies what is essentially infinite recursion to H. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Several people agreed that D simulated by H cannot possibly >>>>>>>>>>>>> reach past its own line 03 no matter what H does. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, it is only that if H fails to be a decider. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *We don't make this leap of logic. I never used the term decider* >>>>>>>>>>> *We don't make this leap of logic. I never used the term decider* >>>>>>>>>>> *We don't make this leap of logic. I never used the term decider* >>>>>>>>>>> *We don't make this leap of logic. I never used the term decider* >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You admit that people see that as being a claim about the Halting >>>>>>>>>> Problem, and thus the implied definitons of the terms apply. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The only way to get people to understand that I am correct >>>>>>>>> and thus not always ignore my words and leap to the conclusion >>>>>>>>> that I must be wrong is to insist that they review every single >>>>>>>>> detail of all of my reasoning one tiny step at a time. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, the way to get people to understand what you are saying is to use >>>>>>>> the standard terminology, and start with what people will accept and >>>>>>>> move to what is harder to understand. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> People have no obligation to work in the direction you want them to. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes, when you speak non-sense, people will ignore you, because what you >>>>>>>> speak is non-sense. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You are just proving that you don't understand how to perform logic, or >>>>>>>> frame a persuasive arguement. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That fact that as far as we can tell, your "logic" is based on you >>>>>>>> making up things and trying to form justifications for them, just makes >>>>>>>> people unwilling to attempt to "accept" your wild ideas to see what >>>>>>>> might make sense. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Linguistic determinism is the concept that language and its structures >>>>>>> limit and determine human knowledge or thought, as well as thought >>>>>>> processes such as categorization, memory, and perception. >>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_determinism >>>>>> >>>>>> So? Since formal logic isn't based on Linguistics, it doesn't directly >>>>>> impact it. IT might limit the forms we >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Some of the technical "terms of the art" box people into misconceptions >>>>>>> for which there is no escape. Some of the technical "terms of the art" >>>>>>> I perfectly agree with. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Important technical "term of the art" that I totally agree with* >>>>>>> Computable functions are the formalized analogue of the intuitive notion >>>>>>> of algorithms, in the sense that a function is computable if there >>>>>>> exists an algorithm that can do the job of the function, i.e. given an >>>>>>> input of the function domain it can return the corresponding output. >>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function >>>>>> >>>>>> But you seem to miss that Halting isn't a "Computable Function", as >>>>>> Turing Proved. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Even the term "halting" is problematic. >>>>> For 15 years I thought it means stops running for any reason. >>>> >>>> And that shows your STUPIDITY, not an error in the Theory. >>>> >>>>> Now I know that it means reaches the final state. Half the >>>>> people here may not know that. >>>> >>>> No, I suspect most of the people here are smarter than that. >>>> >>> >>> Yet again only rhetoric wit no actual reasoning. >>> Do you believe: >>> (a) Halting means stopping for any reason. >>> (b) Halting means reaching a final state. >>> (c) Neither. >> >> The simplest way to define halting is (s): neither. Instead, it means >> that it is not possible to continue the computation to an infinite >> number of steps. >> > > Wrong answer. The word "you" in the question did not refer to me, so I didn't answer, just commented. > computation that halts… “the Turing machine will halt whenever it > enters a final state” (Linz:1990:234) > > [5] Linz, Peter 1990. An Introduction to Formal Languages and Automata. > Lexington/Toronto: D. C. Heath and Company. (317-320) That, together with other definitions by Linz, means exactly the same as the definition I proposed. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-30 10:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v0r40q$2hb7o$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104100 |
On 4/30/2024 5:27 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2024-04-29 14:20:20 +0000, olcott said: > >> On 4/29/2024 8:44 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 2024-04-28 18:52:06 +0000, olcott said: >>> >>>> On 4/28/2024 1:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 4/28/24 2:19 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 4/28/2024 1:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 4/28/24 1:50 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 4/28/2024 11:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 4/28/24 11:33 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/2024 10:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/24 9:52 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/2024 8:19 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/24 8:56 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/2024 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-28 00:17:48 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can D simulated by H terminate normally? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One should not that "D simulated by H" is not the same as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "simulation of D by H". The message below seems to be more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about the latter than the former. In any case, it is more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about the properties of H than about the properties of D. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> D specifies what is essentially infinite recursion to H. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Several people agreed that D simulated by H cannot possibly >>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach past its own line 03 no matter what H does. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, it is only that if H fails to be a decider. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> *We don't make this leap of logic. I never used the term >>>>>>>>>>>> decider* >>>>>>>>>>>> *We don't make this leap of logic. I never used the term >>>>>>>>>>>> decider* >>>>>>>>>>>> *We don't make this leap of logic. I never used the term >>>>>>>>>>>> decider* >>>>>>>>>>>> *We don't make this leap of logic. I never used the term >>>>>>>>>>>> decider* >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You admit that people see that as being a claim about the >>>>>>>>>>> Halting Problem, and thus the implied definitons of the terms >>>>>>>>>>> apply. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The only way to get people to understand that I am correct >>>>>>>>>> and thus not always ignore my words and leap to the conclusion >>>>>>>>>> that I must be wrong is to insist that they review every single >>>>>>>>>> detail of all of my reasoning one tiny step at a time. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No, the way to get people to understand what you are saying is >>>>>>>>> to use the standard terminology, and start with what people >>>>>>>>> will accept and move to what is harder to understand. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> People have no obligation to work in the direction you want >>>>>>>>> them to. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yes, when you speak non-sense, people will ignore you, because >>>>>>>>> what you speak is non-sense. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You are just proving that you don't understand how to perform >>>>>>>>> logic, or frame a persuasive arguement. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That fact that as far as we can tell, your "logic" is based on >>>>>>>>> you making up things and trying to form justifications for >>>>>>>>> them, just makes people unwilling to attempt to "accept" your >>>>>>>>> wild ideas to see what might make sense. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Linguistic determinism is the concept that language and its >>>>>>>> structures >>>>>>>> limit and determine human knowledge or thought, as well as thought >>>>>>>> processes such as categorization, memory, and perception. >>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_determinism >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So? Since formal logic isn't based on Linguistics, it doesn't >>>>>>> directly impact it. IT might limit the forms we >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Some of the technical "terms of the art" box people into >>>>>>>> misconceptions >>>>>>>> for which there is no escape. Some of the technical "terms of >>>>>>>> the art" >>>>>>>> I perfectly agree with. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Important technical "term of the art" that I totally agree with* >>>>>>>> Computable functions are the formalized analogue of the >>>>>>>> intuitive notion >>>>>>>> of algorithms, in the sense that a function is computable if there >>>>>>>> exists an algorithm that can do the job of the function, i.e. >>>>>>>> given an >>>>>>>> input of the function domain it can return the corresponding >>>>>>>> output. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But you seem to miss that Halting isn't a "Computable Function", >>>>>>> as Turing Proved. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Even the term "halting" is problematic. >>>>>> For 15 years I thought it means stops running for any reason. >>>>> >>>>> And that shows your STUPIDITY, not an error in the Theory. >>>>> >>>>>> Now I know that it means reaches the final state. Half the >>>>>> people here may not know that. >>>>> >>>>> No, I suspect most of the people here are smarter than that. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Yet again only rhetoric wit no actual reasoning. >>>> Do you believe: >>>> (a) Halting means stopping for any reason. >>>> (b) Halting means reaching a final state. >>>> (c) Neither. >>> >>> The simplest way to define halting is (s): neither. Instead, it means >>> that it is not possible to continue the computation to an infinite >>> number of steps. >>> >> >> Wrong answer. > > The word "you" in the question did not refer to me, so I didn't answer, > just commented. > >> computation that halts… “the Turing machine will halt whenever it >> enters a final state” (Linz:1990:234) >> >> [5] Linz, Peter 1990. An Introduction to Formal Languages and >> Automata. Lexington/Toronto: D. C. Heath and Company. (317-320) > > That, together with other definitions by Linz, means exactly the same > as the definition I proposed. > Since the notion of abnormal termination could not exist prior to my creation of a simulating halt decider and does exist within this frame-of-reference we must construe abnormal termination as not halting. If we don't do this we end up with actual infinite loops that halt. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-30 18:46 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v0rsbu$2m1nf$7@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #104110 |
On 4/30/24 11:50 AM, olcott wrote: > On 4/30/2024 5:27 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2024-04-29 14:20:20 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> On 4/29/2024 8:44 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2024-04-28 18:52:06 +0000, olcott said: >>>> >>>>> On 4/28/2024 1:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 4/28/24 2:19 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 4/28/2024 1:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 4/28/24 1:50 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 4/28/2024 11:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/24 11:33 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/2024 10:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/24 9:52 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/2024 8:19 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/24 8:56 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/2024 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-28 00:17:48 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can D simulated by H terminate normally? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One should not that "D simulated by H" is not the same as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "simulation of D by H". The message below seems to be more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about the latter than the former. In any case, it is more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about the properties of H than about the properties of D. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> D specifies what is essentially infinite recursion to H. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Several people agreed that D simulated by H cannot possibly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach past its own line 03 no matter what H does. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, it is only that if H fails to be a decider. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> *We don't make this leap of logic. I never used the term >>>>>>>>>>>>> decider* >>>>>>>>>>>>> *We don't make this leap of logic. I never used the term >>>>>>>>>>>>> decider* >>>>>>>>>>>>> *We don't make this leap of logic. I never used the term >>>>>>>>>>>>> decider* >>>>>>>>>>>>> *We don't make this leap of logic. I never used the term >>>>>>>>>>>>> decider* >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You admit that people see that as being a claim about the >>>>>>>>>>>> Halting Problem, and thus the implied definitons of the >>>>>>>>>>>> terms apply. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The only way to get people to understand that I am correct >>>>>>>>>>> and thus not always ignore my words and leap to the conclusion >>>>>>>>>>> that I must be wrong is to insist that they review every single >>>>>>>>>>> detail of all of my reasoning one tiny step at a time. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No, the way to get people to understand what you are saying is >>>>>>>>>> to use the standard terminology, and start with what people >>>>>>>>>> will accept and move to what is harder to understand. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> People have no obligation to work in the direction you want >>>>>>>>>> them to. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Yes, when you speak non-sense, people will ignore you, because >>>>>>>>>> what you speak is non-sense. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You are just proving that you don't understand how to perform >>>>>>>>>> logic, or frame a persuasive arguement. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That fact that as far as we can tell, your "logic" is based on >>>>>>>>>> you making up things and trying to form justifications for >>>>>>>>>> them, just makes people unwilling to attempt to "accept" your >>>>>>>>>> wild ideas to see what might make sense. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Linguistic determinism is the concept that language and its >>>>>>>>> structures >>>>>>>>> limit and determine human knowledge or thought, as well as thought >>>>>>>>> processes such as categorization, memory, and perception. >>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_determinism >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So? Since formal logic isn't based on Linguistics, it doesn't >>>>>>>> directly impact it. IT might limit the forms we >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Some of the technical "terms of the art" box people into >>>>>>>>> misconceptions >>>>>>>>> for which there is no escape. Some of the technical "terms of >>>>>>>>> the art" >>>>>>>>> I perfectly agree with. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *Important technical "term of the art" that I totally agree with* >>>>>>>>> Computable functions are the formalized analogue of the >>>>>>>>> intuitive notion >>>>>>>>> of algorithms, in the sense that a function is computable if there >>>>>>>>> exists an algorithm that can do the job of the function, i.e. >>>>>>>>> given an >>>>>>>>> input of the function domain it can return the corresponding >>>>>>>>> output. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But you seem to miss that Halting isn't a "Computable Function", >>>>>>>> as Turing Proved. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Even the term "halting" is problematic. >>>>>>> For 15 years I thought it means stops running for any reason. >>>>>> >>>>>> And that shows your STUPIDITY, not an error in the Theory. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Now I know that it means reaches the final state. Half the >>>>>>> people here may not know that. >>>>>> >>>>>> No, I suspect most of the people here are smarter than that. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yet again only rhetoric wit no actual reasoning. >>>>> Do you believe: >>>>> (a) Halting means stopping for any reason. >>>>> (b) Halting means reaching a final state. >>>>> (c) Neither. >>>> >>>> The simplest way to define halting is (s): neither. Instead, it means >>>> that it is not possible to continue the computation to an infinite >>>> number of steps. >>>> >>> >>> Wrong answer. >> >> The word "you" in the question did not refer to me, so I didn't answer, >> just commented. >> >>> computation that halts… “the Turing machine will halt whenever it >>> enters a final state” (Linz:1990:234) >>> >>> [5] Linz, Peter 1990. An Introduction to Formal Languages and >>> Automata. Lexington/Toronto: D. C. Heath and Company. (317-320) >> >> That, together with other definitions by Linz, means exactly the same >> as the definition I proposed. >> > > Since the notion of abnormal termination could not exist prior > to my creation of a simulating halt decider and does exist within this > frame-of-reference we must construe abnormal termination as not halting. > If we don't do this we end up with actual infinite loops that halt. > > Except that Turing Machine do not have a concept of "Abnormal Termination", you are just showing that your system isn't actually the equivlent to the Turing Problem. yes, we can define that some "final states" are to be considered "abnormal terminations" and some "Normal Termination", but that doesn't change the nature of the problem.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-30 23:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v0sfrs$2varu$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104127 |
On 4/30/2024 5:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 4/30/24 11:50 AM, olcott wrote: >> On 4/30/2024 5:27 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 2024-04-29 14:20:20 +0000, olcott said: >>> >>>> On 4/29/2024 8:44 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 2024-04-28 18:52:06 +0000, olcott said: >>>>> >>>>>> On 4/28/2024 1:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 4/28/24 2:19 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 4/28/2024 1:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 4/28/24 1:50 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/2024 11:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/24 11:33 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/2024 10:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/24 9:52 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/2024 8:19 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/24 8:56 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/2024 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-28 00:17:48 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can D simulated by H terminate normally? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One should not that "D simulated by H" is not the same as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "simulation of D by H". The message below seems to be more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about the latter than the former. In any case, it is more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about the properties of H than about the properties of D. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> D specifies what is essentially infinite recursion to H. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Several people agreed that D simulated by H cannot possibly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach past its own line 03 no matter what H does. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, it is only that if H fails to be a decider. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *We don't make this leap of logic. I never used the term >>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider* >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *We don't make this leap of logic. I never used the term >>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider* >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *We don't make this leap of logic. I never used the term >>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider* >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *We don't make this leap of logic. I never used the term >>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider* >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You admit that people see that as being a claim about the >>>>>>>>>>>>> Halting Problem, and thus the implied definitons of the >>>>>>>>>>>>> terms apply. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The only way to get people to understand that I am correct >>>>>>>>>>>> and thus not always ignore my words and leap to the conclusion >>>>>>>>>>>> that I must be wrong is to insist that they review every single >>>>>>>>>>>> detail of all of my reasoning one tiny step at a time. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No, the way to get people to understand what you are saying >>>>>>>>>>> is to use the standard terminology, and start with what >>>>>>>>>>> people will accept and move to what is harder to understand. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> People have no obligation to work in the direction you want >>>>>>>>>>> them to. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes, when you speak non-sense, people will ignore you, >>>>>>>>>>> because what you speak is non-sense. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You are just proving that you don't understand how to perform >>>>>>>>>>> logic, or frame a persuasive arguement. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> That fact that as far as we can tell, your "logic" is based >>>>>>>>>>> on you making up things and trying to form justifications for >>>>>>>>>>> them, just makes people unwilling to attempt to "accept" your >>>>>>>>>>> wild ideas to see what might make sense. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Linguistic determinism is the concept that language and its >>>>>>>>>> structures >>>>>>>>>> limit and determine human knowledge or thought, as well as >>>>>>>>>> thought >>>>>>>>>> processes such as categorization, memory, and perception. >>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_determinism >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So? Since formal logic isn't based on Linguistics, it doesn't >>>>>>>>> directly impact it. IT might limit the forms we >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Some of the technical "terms of the art" box people into >>>>>>>>>> misconceptions >>>>>>>>>> for which there is no escape. Some of the technical "terms of >>>>>>>>>> the art" >>>>>>>>>> I perfectly agree with. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *Important technical "term of the art" that I totally agree with* >>>>>>>>>> Computable functions are the formalized analogue of the >>>>>>>>>> intuitive notion >>>>>>>>>> of algorithms, in the sense that a function is computable if >>>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>>> exists an algorithm that can do the job of the function, i.e. >>>>>>>>>> given an >>>>>>>>>> input of the function domain it can return the corresponding >>>>>>>>>> output. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But you seem to miss that Halting isn't a "Computable >>>>>>>>> Function", as Turing Proved. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Even the term "halting" is problematic. >>>>>>>> For 15 years I thought it means stops running for any reason. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And that shows your STUPIDITY, not an error in the Theory. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Now I know that it means reaches the final state. Half the >>>>>>>> people here may not know that. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, I suspect most of the people here are smarter than that. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Yet again only rhetoric wit no actual reasoning. >>>>>> Do you believe: >>>>>> (a) Halting means stopping for any reason. >>>>>> (b) Halting means reaching a final state. >>>>>> (c) Neither. >>>>> >>>>> The simplest way to define halting is (s): neither. Instead, it means >>>>> that it is not possible to continue the computation to an infinite >>>>> number of steps. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Wrong answer. >>> >>> The word "you" in the question did not refer to me, so I didn't answer, >>> just commented. >>> >>>> computation that halts… “the Turing machine will halt whenever it >>>> enters a final state” (Linz:1990:234) >>>> >>>> [5] Linz, Peter 1990. An Introduction to Formal Languages and >>>> Automata. Lexington/Toronto: D. C. Heath and Company. (317-320) >>> >>> That, together with other definitions by Linz, means exactly the same >>> as the definition I proposed. >>> >> >> Since the notion of abnormal termination could not exist prior >> to my creation of a simulating halt decider and does exist within this >> frame-of-reference we must construe abnormal termination as not halting. >> If we don't do this we end up with actual infinite loops that halt. >> >> > > Except that Turing Machine do not have a concept of "Abnormal > Termination", They do now, otherwise simulating termination analyzers are defined to report that infinite loops always halt because they abort their simulation of this infinite loop to report not halting. Any simulated input that does not need to be aborted to prevent its own infinite execution is an input that terminates normally. This counts as halting. All inputs that must be aborted terminate abnormally, thus does not count as halting. > you are just showing that your system isn't actually the > equivlent to the Turing Problem. > > yes, we can define that some "final states" are to be considered > "abnormal terminations" and some "Normal Termination", but that doesn't > change the nature of the problem. *The step that corrects the error of the halting problem comes last* -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-01 09:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <v0t2pv$1iuj$1@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #104131 |
olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 4/30/2024 5:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 4/30/24 11:50 AM, olcott wrote: [ .... ] >>> Since the notion of abnormal termination could not exist prior to my >>> creation of a simulating halt decider and does exist within this >>> frame-of-reference we must construe abnormal termination as not >>> halting. If we don't do this we end up with actual infinite loops >>> that halt. >> Except that Turing Machine do not have a concept of "Abnormal >> Termination", Indeed, not. > They do now, otherwise simulating termination analyzers are defined > to report that infinite loops always halt because they abort their > simulation of this infinite loop to report not halting. Balderdash. "Simulating termination analyzers" aren't defined at all. Until we have some definition of them, it is impossible to discuss their properties sensibly. > Any simulated input that does not need to be aborted to prevent > its own infinite execution is an input that terminates normally. > This counts as halting. Except that without a functioning halting decider, it is impossible to know whether a simulated input "needs to be aborted" or not. We know there are no functioning halting deciders. > All inputs that must be aborted terminate abnormally, thus does > not count as halting. I have shown, in the last two days, that "terminating abnormally", whatever that might mean in a turing machine, is indeed halting. You chose not to respond to those parts of my posts. >> you are just showing that your system isn't actually the >> equivlent to the Turing Problem. >> yes, we can define that some "final states" are to be considered >> "abnormal terminations" and some "Normal Termination", but that >> doesn't change the nature of the problem. > *The step that corrects the error of the halting problem comes last* > -- > Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius > hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-01 10:26 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v0tmv7$37lgj$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104134 |
On 5/1/2024 4:42 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 4/30/2024 5:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 4/30/24 11:50 AM, olcott wrote: > > [ .... ] > >>>> Since the notion of abnormal termination could not exist prior to my >>>> creation of a simulating halt decider and does exist within this >>>> frame-of-reference we must construe abnormal termination as not >>>> halting. If we don't do this we end up with actual infinite loops >>>> that halt. > >>> Except that Turing Machine do not have a concept of "Abnormal >>> Termination", > > Indeed, not. > >> They do now, otherwise simulating termination analyzers are defined >> to report that infinite loops always halt because they abort their >> simulation of this infinite loop to report not halting. > > Balderdash. "Simulating termination analyzers" aren't defined at all. > Until we have some definition of them, it is impossible to discuss their > properties sensibly. > When you say that I have not defined them at all you are ignoring the 10,000 times that I have defined them in this forum. >> Any simulated input that does not need to be aborted to prevent >> its own infinite execution is an input that terminates normally. >> This counts as halting. > > Except that without a functioning halting decider, it is impossible to > know whether a simulated input "needs to be aborted" or not. We know > there are no functioning halting deciders. > It is a termination analyzer thus is not required to be infallibly correct on every possible input. It must get at least one input correctly. D simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own line 3 even in an infinite number of simulated steps. >> All inputs that must be aborted terminate abnormally, thus does >> not count as halting. > > I have shown, in the last two days, that "terminating abnormally", > whatever that might mean in a turing machine, is indeed halting. You > chose not to respond to those parts of my posts. > If we take your definition then all infinite loops halt therefore you are wrong. >>> you are just showing that your system isn't actually the >>> equivlent to the Turing Problem. > You don't even understand that no infinite loop halts. >>> yes, we can define that some "final states" are to be considered >>> "abnormal terminations" and some "Normal Termination", but that >>> doesn't change the nature of the problem. > >> *The step that corrects the error of the halting problem comes last* > >> -- >> Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius >> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer > -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-01 20:16 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v0um11$2qov4$2@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #104144 |
On 5/1/24 11:26 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/1/2024 4:42 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 4/30/2024 5:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 4/30/24 11:50 AM, olcott wrote:
>>
>> [ .... ]
>>
>>>>> Since the notion of abnormal termination could not exist prior to my
>>>>> creation of a simulating halt decider and does exist within this
>>>>> frame-of-reference we must construe abnormal termination as not
>>>>> halting. If we don't do this we end up with actual infinite loops
>>>>> that halt.
>>
>>>> Except that Turing Machine do not have a concept of "Abnormal
>>>> Termination",
>>
>> Indeed, not.
>>
>>> They do now, otherwise simulating termination analyzers are defined
>>> to report that infinite loops always halt because they abort their
>>> simulation of this infinite loop to report not halting.
>>
>> Balderdash. "Simulating termination analyzers" aren't defined at all.
>> Until we have some definition of them, it is impossible to discuss their
>> properties sensibly.
>>
>
> When you say that I have not defined them at all you are ignoring the
> 10,000 times that I have defined them in this forum.
>
>>> Any simulated input that does not need to be aborted to prevent
>>> its own infinite execution is an input that terminates normally.
>>> This counts as halting.
>>
>> Except that without a functioning halting decider, it is impossible to
>> know whether a simulated input "needs to be aborted" or not. We know
>> there are no functioning halting deciders.
>>
>
> It is a termination analyzer thus is not required to be infallibly
> correct on every possible input. It must get at least one input
> correctly.
In other words, it is a TOY.
By your definition:
H(ptr m, ptr d) {
return 1;
}
is a correct termination analyzer, as it will get at least one input
correctly.
>
> D simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own line 3 even
> in an infinite number of simulated steps.
WRONG. see my other post.
>
>>> All inputs that must be aborted terminate abnormally, thus does
>>> not count as halting.
>>
>> I have shown, in the last two days, that "terminating abnormally",
>> whatever that might mean in a turing machine, is indeed halting. You
>> chose not to respond to those parts of my posts.
>>
>
> If we take your definition then all infinite loops halt therefore
> you are wrong.
>
No, because the Turing Machine, in an infinite loop, doesn't terminate
abnormally.
Only the SIMULATION of the machine terminated abnormally.
>>>> you are just showing that your system isn't actually the
>>>> equivlent to the Turing Problem.
>>
>
> You don't even understand that no infinite loop halts.
Right, not even abnormally.
Only simulations terminate abnormally, but (partial) simulations are not
actual machine behavior.
You are just showing all the more that you don't understand the
difference between the REALITY of the machine behavior shown by the
actual running of the machine, and the "imaginary" world of a simulation
of it. The imaginary only become reality if it is taken to completion.
>
>>>> yes, we can define that some "final states" are to be considered
>>>> "abnormal terminations" and some "Normal Termination", but that
>>>> doesn't change the nature of the problem.
>>
>>> *The step that corrects the error of the halting problem comes last*
>>
>>> --
>>> Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
>>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
>>
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-01 18:44 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <v0unks$3f7d8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104155 |
On 2024-05-01 18:16, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/1/24 11:26 AM, olcott wrote:
>> It is a termination analyzer thus is not required to be infallibly
>> correct on every possible input. It must get at least one input
>> correctly.
>
> In other words, it is a TOY.
>
> By your definition:
>
> H(ptr m, ptr d) {
> return 1;
> }
>
> is a correct termination analyzer, as it will get at least one input
> correctly.
Actually, by the metric which he gives, every single decider in
existence is a correct termination analyzer, which tends to suggest this
metric is relatively useless.
André
--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-01 21:13 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v0upc0$2qov3$6@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #104161 |
On 5/1/24 8:44 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2024-05-01 18:16, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/1/24 11:26 AM, olcott wrote:
>
>>> It is a termination analyzer thus is not required to be infallibly
>>> correct on every possible input. It must get at least one input
>>> correctly.
>>
>> In other words, it is a TOY.
>>
>> By your definition:
>>
>> H(ptr m, ptr d) {
>> return 1;
>> }
>>
>> is a correct termination analyzer, as it will get at least one input
>> correctly.
>
> Actually, by the metric which he gives, every single decider in
> existence is a correct termination analyzer, which tends to suggest this
> metric is relatively useless.
>
> André
>
I suppose that is true, since if there was one that gave the wrong
answer for every input would show Halting to be decidable by just
building one that use that and negated the answer.
You could have a machine that never gives the right answer, but it needs
to fail sometimes by not answering, (and thus not being a decider).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-01 20:44 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v0ur6c$3fq9a$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104161 |
On 5/1/2024 7:44 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2024-05-01 18:16, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/1/24 11:26 AM, olcott wrote:
>
>>> It is a termination analyzer thus is not required to be infallibly
>>> correct on every possible input. It must get at least one input
>>> correctly.
>>
>> In other words, it is a TOY.
>>
>> By your definition:
>>
>> H(ptr m, ptr d) {
>> return 1;
>> }
>>
>> is a correct termination analyzer, as it will get at least one input
>> correctly.
>
> Actually, by the metric which he gives, every single decider in
> existence is a correct termination analyzer, which tends to suggest this
> metric is relatively useless.
>
> André
>
Try and back that up with reasoning anchored in quotes from my paper.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-01 20:30 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <v0uts9$3k5ac$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104165 |
On 2024-05-01 19:44, olcott wrote:
> On 5/1/2024 7:44 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2024-05-01 18:16, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/1/24 11:26 AM, olcott wrote:
>>
>>>> It is a termination analyzer thus is not required to be infallibly
>>>> correct on every possible input. It must get at least one input
>>>> correctly.
>>>
>>> In other words, it is a TOY.
>>>
>>> By your definition:
>>>
>>> H(ptr m, ptr d) {
>>> return 1;
>>> }
>>>
>>> is a correct termination analyzer, as it will get at least one input
>>> correctly.
>>
>> Actually, by the metric which he gives, every single decider in
>> existence is a correct termination analyzer, which tends to suggest
>> this metric is relatively useless.
>>
>> André
>>
>
> Try and back that up with reasoning anchored in quotes from my paper.
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
I was commenting on the line which you wrote here in this group, not a
line from the above 'paper'.
Since the above paper talks about "termination analyzers" without
offering any definition of what is meant by this term, I can only go by
your comment in this group where you write that "a termination analyzer
thus is not required to be infallibly correct on every possible input.
It must get *at least one* input correctly." [emphasis mine].
That means that any decider which correctly accepts *one* terminating
program as terminating is a "termination analyzer" (unless, of course,
you mean something entirely different by "termination analyzer". But
this would require you to supply an actual definition.)
And every decider will accept at least *one* terminating program
description, regardless of what it is that that decider was actually
intended to decide. That follows from the simple fact that it is no more
possible to construct a decider which gets every instance of the halting
problem* wrong than it is to construct one that gets every instance right.
André
[*] Here talk about 'halting' as if it is the same thing as
'terminating'. Since you've switched from talking about halt deciders to
'termination analyzers', perhaps you think these mean different things.
But that again would require you to actually define what you think this
difference is. Otherwise we're left simply trying to guess the meanings
of your terms, as usual.
--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 18 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web