Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #107386
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten |
| Date | 2024-06-18 19:32 +0300 |
| Organization | - |
| Message-ID | <v4scrl$1edq0$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (26 earlier) <v4pcds$ln46$4@dont-email.me> <v4rj8m$180pg$2@dont-email.me> <v4rvcv$1boeu$1@dont-email.me> <v4s8st$1dcrb$2@dont-email.me> <v4s9mt$1dk9i$2@dont-email.me> |
On 2024-06-18 15:39:09 +0000, olcott said:
> 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
That satellite mever flew.
--
Mikko
Back to comp.theory | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll 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