Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #105437
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory, sci.logic |
| Subject | Re: No decider is allowed to report on the behavior of the computation that itself is contained within |
| Date | 2024-05-23 21:44 -0400 |
| Organization | i2pn2 (i2pn.org) |
| Message-ID | <v2orea$1tsmo$3@i2pn2.org> (permalink) |
| References | (14 earlier) <v2m9u6$1ievj$3@dont-email.me> <v2ma6a$1qo0t$5@i2pn2.org> <v2mb28$1io97$1@dont-email.me> <v2mq8v$1l0r2$1@dont-email.me> <v2nfnr$1or9h$5@dont-email.me> |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
On 5/23/24 9:18 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/23/2024 2:12 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 23.mei.2024 om 04:52 schreef olcott:
>>> On 5/22/2024 9:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/22/24 10:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/22/2024 9:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/22/24 10:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/22/2024 6:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/22/24 5:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2022 2:53 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> He's dry-run P(P) and established that it doesn't halt. He's
>>>>>>>>>> invoked H on it
>>>>>>>>>> and H reports that it doesn't halt. He's run P(P) and it halts.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So something odd is going on there that needs an explanation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *MUCH BETTER WORDS THAN ONE YEAR AGO*
>>>>>>>>> *MUCH BETTER WORDS THAN ONE YEAR AGO*
>>>>>>>>> *MUCH BETTER WORDS THAN ONE YEAR AGO*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function in C
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is trivial to see that for every H/D pair of the infinite
>>>>>>>>> set of H/D pairs that match the above template that
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own final
>>>>>>>>> state at line 06 and halt because D correctly simulated by
>>>>>>>>> H remains stuck in recursive simulation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Deciders are only accountable for the behavior of their inputs
>>>>>>>>> and are thus not allowed to report on the behavior of the
>>>>>>>>> computation
>>>>>>>>> that they themselves are contained within.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No. "Behavior of their inputss" MEANS for Turing Machines that
>>>>>>>> are computing properties of Turing Machines (like Halt Deciders)
>>>>>>>> have the "behavior of their input" defined as the Behavior of
>>>>>>>> the machine their input represents/describes/specifies.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Only specifies and no matter how many times you deny it,
>>>>>>> it remains a verified fact that:
>>>>>>> the input to H
>>>>>>> the input to H
>>>>>>> the input to H
>>>>>>> the input to H
>>>>>>> the input to H
>>>>>>> the input to H
>>>>>>> the input to H
>>>>>>> specifies that it never reaches its own final state and halts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No since when the input is run,
>>>>>
>>>>> *That has nothing to do with*
>>>>> *The behavior that the input to H specifies*
>>>>> *The behavior that the input to H specifies*
>>>>> *The behavior that the input to H specifies*
>>>>> *The behavior that the input to H specifies*
>>>>> *The behavior that the input to H specifies*
>>>>> *The behavior that the input to H specifies*
>>>>> *The behavior that the input to H specifies*
>>>>>
>>>>> *The behavior that the input to H specifies*
>>>>> *The behavior that the input to H specifies*
>>>>> *The behavior that the input to H specifies*
>>>>> *The behavior that the input to H specifies*
>>>>> *The behavior that the input to H specifies*
>>>>> *The behavior that the input to H specifies*
>>>>> *The behavior that the input to H specifies*
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sure it does.
>>>>
>>>> What else does the question: Does the program described to the
>>>> decider halt mean other than that?
>>>
>>> *That is the FREAKING WRONG QUESTION*
>>>
>>> *NO ONE KNEW THAT IS WAS THE WRONG QUESTION*
>>> *ONLY BECAUSE EVERYONE REJECTED A SIMULATING*
>>> *TERMINATION ANALYZER OUT-OF-HAND WITHOUT REVIEW*
>>>
>>> D of every H/D pair where D is correctly simulated
>>> by H cannot possibly reach is own line 06 and halt.
>>>
>>> The failure to provide a counter-example will be
>>> construed as proof of this.
>>>
>> The failure to provide a counter example is not a proof.
>
> OK then Church-Turing is a wild guess.
>
Which is why it is "Thesis", accepted as most probably true, but not
proven, and not a Theorem, like the Halting Theorem, which HAS been
conclusively proven.
You are just making it clear you don't understand the basics of logic.
Back to comp.theory | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
No decider is ever allowed to report on the behavior of the computation that itself is contained within olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-22 16:19 -0500
Re: No decider is ever allowed to report on the behavior of the computation that itself is contained within Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-22 19:01 -0400
Re: No decider is allowed to report on the behavior of the computation that itself is contained within olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-22 21:07 -0500
Re: No decider is allowed to report on the behavior of the computation that itself is contained within Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-22 22:27 -0400
Re: No decider is allowed to report on the behavior of the computation that itself is contained within olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-22 21:33 -0500
Re: No decider is allowed to report on the behavior of the computation that itself is contained within Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-22 22:38 -0400
Re: No decider is allowed to report on the behavior of the computation that itself is contained within olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-22 21:52 -0500
Re: No decider is allowed to report on the behavior of the computation that itself is contained within "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-23 09:12 +0200
Re: No decider is allowed to report on the behavior of the computation that itself is contained within olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-23 08:18 -0500
Re: No decider is allowed to report on the behavior of the computation that itself is contained within Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-23 21:44 -0400
Re: No decider is allowed to report on the behavior of the computation that itself is contained within (LIE) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-23 07:29 -0400
Re: No decider is allowed to report on the behavior of the computation that itself is contained within (LIE) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-23 08:58 -0500
Re: No decider is allowed to report on the behavior of the computation that itself is contained within (LIE) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-23 21:44 -0400
csiph-web