Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.theory > #107373

Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten

From olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups comp.theory
Subject Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten
Date 2024-06-18 10:39 -0500
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <v4s9mt$1dk9i$2@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References (26 earlier) <v4oo7t$hpjr$1@dont-email.me> <v4pcds$ln46$4@dont-email.me> <v4rj8m$180pg$2@dont-email.me> <v4rvcv$1boeu$1@dont-email.me> <v4s8st$1dcrb$2@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

On 6/18/2024 10:25 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 18.jun.2024 om 14:43 schreef olcott:
>> On 6/18/2024 4:16 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 17.jun.2024 om 15:07 schreef olcott:
>>>> On 6/17/2024 2:22 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-06-16 12:37:38 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/16/2024 1:21 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>> Op 15.jun.2024 om 17:23 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>> On 6/15/2024 10:12 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Op 15.jun.2024 om 16:48 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/15/2024 9:37 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Is this the new definition of "pathological"?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *It is the same thing that I have been saying all along*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 00   typedef void (*ptr)(); // pointer to void function
>>>>>>>>>> 01
>>>>>>>>>> 02   int HH(ptr P, ptr I);
>>>>>>>>>> 03
>>>>>>>>>> 04   void DDD(int (*x)())
>>>>>>>>>> 05   {
>>>>>>>>>> 06     HH(x, x);
>>>>>>>>>> 07     return;
>>>>>>>>>> 08   }
>>>>>>>>>> 09
>>>>>>>>>> 10   int main()
>>>>>>>>>> 11   {
>>>>>>>>>> 12     HH(DDD,DDD);
>>>>>>>>>> 13   }
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Line 12 main()
>>>>>>>>>>    invokes HH(DDD,DDD); that simulates DDD()
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *REPEAT UNTIL outer HH aborts*
>>>>>>>>>>    Line 06 simulated DDD()
>>>>>>>>>>    invokes simulated HH(DDD,DDD); that simulates DDD()
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> DDD correctly simulated by HH never reaches its own "return"
>>>>>>>>>> instruction and halts.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, you agree that you are changing definitions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not at all. The original definition still applies when it
>>>>>>>> is made more generic.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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       }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> D correctly simulated by H has isomorphic behavior to DDD
>>>>>>>> correctly simulated by HH, both get stuck in recursive
>>>>>>>> simulation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When asked what is a pathological program olcott replied:
>>>>>>> Op 14.jun.2024 om 21:18 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>> For any program H that might determine whether programs halt, a
>>>>>>>> "pathological" program D, called with some input, can pass its own
>>>>>>>> source and its input to H and then specifically do the opposite 
>>>>>>>> of what
>>>>>>>> H predicts D will do. No H can exist that handles this case.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No he defines a "pathological" program as a program that calls H.
>>>>>>> All words about doing the opposite of what H predicts, have 
>>>>>>> disappeared.
>>>>>>> Everyone sees the difference, but he is stuck is rebuttal mode 
>>>>>>> and denies the change of definition.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The code that "does the opposite" was never reachable by
>>>>>> a simulating halt decider thus does not change the problem
>>>>>> for a simulating halt decider when this code is removed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By simplifying the problem we gain cognitive leverage. With
>>>>>> less details to pay attention to the while simplified problem
>>>>>> can be more deeply understood.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> His only excuse is that in both cases a recursive simulation is 
>>>>>>> seen, but that is not the point.
>>>>>>> He had already proved earlier that in
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>        int main()
>>>>>>>        {
>>>>>>>          return H(main, 0);
>>>>>>>        }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> H produces a false negative, because main halts, whereas H reports
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The input does not halt and deciders are only accountable
>>>>>> for the behavior of their input.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the above main does not halt then H it calls is not a decider.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That is merely a more difficult to understand
>>>> example of this simplest possible case.
>>>>
>>>> void DDD()
>>>> {
>>>>    H0(DDD);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> int main()
>>>> {
>>>>    H0(DDD);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, the other case is is simpler:
>>>
>>>         int main()
>>>         {
>>>           return H(main, 0);
>>>         }
>>>
>>> DDD is an unneeded complication. These four lines are sufficient to 
>>> see that there is no other reason for the false negative than H itself.
>>>
>>> We understand that you do not like the simplest example, because it 
>>> shows that the reasoning that there is a difference between main 
>>> calling DDD(), or calling H0(DDD) is futile. In the simplest case 
>>> this futile trick is not possible.
>>> Therefore, we see that the whole problem is that H, or H0 is unable 
>>> to simulate itself sufficiently far enough to see the real behaviour. 
>>> It always aborts one cycle too early and, therefore, produces false 
>>> negatives.
>>
>> The is merely your lack or programming skill. The outer H0 always
>> has at least one more execution trace than any of the inner ones
>> thus if it does not abort none of them do.
>>
> 
> Very good olcott! We agree on this point. At least you understand 
> something of programming. 

I worked for the Airforce at the Airforce base with a secret
clearance on the NPOESS Satellite ingest in C++.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOESS

> This means that if H0 aborts, it will do that 
> always one cycle too early. 


*No that it not it*
http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3Cv4pg5p%24morv%241%40raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org%3E+

> So, it does not see that its simulated self 
> would also abort and halt. So, indeed, an abort may be required, but 
> then it is a wild guess, a wrong one, that it is non-halting, because 
> the reality is that it would halt.

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

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

Thread

Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 13:47 -0500
  Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 14:49 -0500
    Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-08 16:32 -0400
  Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-08 16:32 -0400
  Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1) "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-09 08:33 +0200
    Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 07:21 -0500
      Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 14:08 -0400
    Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 09:13 -0500
      Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 14:08 -0400
      Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-10 10:48 +0300
        Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 10:09 -0500
          Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-10 23:32 -0400
          Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-11 11:02 +0300
            DDD correctly simulated by HH cannot possibly halt olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-11 12:24 -0500
              Re: DDD correctly simulated by HH cannot possibly halt Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-11 21:46 -0400
              Re: DDD correctly simulated by HH cannot possibly halt Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-12 10:20 +0300
                Re: DDD correctly simulated by HH cannot possibly halt olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 10:17 -0500
                Re: DDD correctly simulated by HH cannot possibly halt Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-15 15:03 +0300
          Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-15 14:59 +0300
    Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 00:17 -0500
      Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1) "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-10 09:09 +0200
        Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 08:52 -0500
          Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1) joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-10 15:35 +0000
            Proof that D correctly simulated by H has different behavior than D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 10:39 -0500
              Re: Proof that D correctly simulated by H has different behavior than D(D) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-11 21:59 -0400
          Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1) "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-10 21:15 +0200
          Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-11 21:48 -0400
        Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 14:21 -0500
          Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-10 21:41 +0200
            Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 14:47 -0500
              Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-11 09:21 +0200
                D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-11 12:07 -0500
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-12 08:18 +0200
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 09:47 -0500
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-12 20:19 +0200
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 13:24 -0500
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-12 21:13 +0200
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 14:20 -0500
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-12 21:46 +0200
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 14:53 -0500
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-13 10:15 +0200
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 07:44 -0500
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-13 21:33 +0200
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 14:41 -0500
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-14 11:59 +0200
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 07:49 -0500
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-14 21:00 +0200
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 14:18 -0500
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-14 22:03 +0200
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 15:46 -0500
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-15 11:03 +0200
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 07:12 -0500
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 09:51 -0400
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-15 16:06 +0200
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 09:13 -0500
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 10:29 -0400
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-15 16:37 +0200
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 09:48 -0500
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 11:02 -0400
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-15 17:12 +0200
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 10:23 -0500
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 11:39 -0400
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-16 08:21 +0200
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-16 07:37 -0500
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-16 13:30 -0400
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-16 21:08 +0200
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-17 08:39 -0500
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-17 16:21 +0200
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-17 09:35 -0500
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-17 16:51 +0200
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-17 10:22 +0300
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-17 08:07 -0500
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-18 10:54 +0300
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-18 07:55 -0500
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-18 11:16 +0200
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-18 07:43 -0500
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-18 17:25 +0200
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-18 10:39 -0500
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-18 17:53 +0200
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-18 19:32 +0300
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-18 11:41 -0500
          Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-11 22:17 -0400
      Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-10 07:16 -0400
        Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 12:54 -0500
          Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1) joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-10 18:21 +0000
            Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 13:48 -0500
          Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-10 23:32 -0400

csiph-web