Re: Every D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own line 06 and halt

On 5/21/24 10:05 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/21/2024 8:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/21/24 10:22 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/21/2024 7:03 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/21/24 1:18 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/20/2024 9:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/20/24 10:25 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/20/2024 7:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/20/24 2:03 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/20/2024 6:24 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/19/24 11:22 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/19/2024 10:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/19/24 10:52 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.
>

>
OK, good.

>
Right, so it doesn't matter what any other D does, it matters what THIS D does, and this D calls aths H.
>
Remember, you reinstated the Computation model by enforcing Pure Functions.
>

>

>
<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.
>

>
That is off-topic for this post.
All that we need know is that no D simulated by any H
ever reaches its own line 06 and halts.

>
Nope. Make a claim, you need to prove it.
>

>
*In other different post not this one*
>
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.

>
But you can't PRECISELY define the category, or what you want to reason about, so your logic is worthless as it is baseless.
>

>
*POINT TO ANY ACTUAL MISTAKE OR AMBIGUITY WITH THIS VERSION*
>
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.
>

>
Which thus doesn't correct simulate the call to H

>
*Counter-factual, try again*
We are not talking about any of your misconceptions the term:
"simulate" is expressly defined.

>
And how did your H "Correctly" simulate the call to H?
>

>
That does not matter as long as it is not impossible.

>
But since you claim you did it, you need to show what you did.
>

>
I cannot show the behavior of every element of an infinite set
a c function pairs.

>
So, didn't you say that needing infinite operations to evaluate made something not a truth beared?
>

>

The problem is you don't seem to understand that somethings ARE impossible.
>

>
It is certainly not impossible for pure function H to correctly
simulate D.

>
No, but it is impossible for a pure function H to correctly simulate this D built on that H by the definition of Computation Theory AND provide an answer.
>

 At this point we are only looking at H as a simulator.
We can have this H return the meaningless 56.
 

>

Like building a Turing Machine that always correctly determines if another Turing Machine/Input combination will halt.
>
Your claims that you make one that answers the proof case, is just proven to be a lie, and your proof is based on first assuming it is possible and then using that "fact" to try to prove your answer, which is just the thing you claim you are not allowed to do.
>

>
In the last two years I have not even exaggerated.
Lets call a truce on accusations of lying you eventually
proved that you were not lying about this key point and I
updated my spec to address the issue that you raised.

>
Really, how many times did you say that I did not provide a counter example?
>

 You persistently did refuse to provide the message_ID
this did make you look like a liar.

Because why do I need to provide a pointer to a message you read and ignored.
Note, I kept on saying I would give it under a condition, one that I am going to hold you to, that you admit that you have been wrong about your claims that others haven't refuted you.
ANYTIME form now one that you make that claim, I can point out that you have been wrong about this in the past.

 

>
>

>
I made sure to not call you a liar on this. I said that until
proved otherwise I will assume that you are a liar and then
you proved otherwise.

>
But you continued to assert a statement that was untrue, even though it was proved incorrect, you LATER changed your definition to try to get around my answer,
>

 You persistently did refuse to provide the message_ID
this did make you look like a liar.

Because you refued to make the pledge not to use the false arguement that you have not be refuted.

 

You still haven't refuted the first method.
>

 Sure I have this H is ONLY simulator thus the first method
loses its basis.

Why is that? Isn't a valid simulation (one that your own H uses) is to replace the call to H with an "equivalent" response. WHy else do you list the simulation of the call H as the results of the simulation that H does.
So, by your claim above, your H isn't allowed to presume by its logic that a call to H will not return, as that isn't a "simulation" of the input.
Only by moving the goal posts, do you try to argue.
Note, this is why I am asking for you to come up with a PRECISE specification of what you are claiming to do.

 

>

Thus, it is proven that you whole concept is just built on inconsistant lies.
>

>

>
This is the only post about this subject that I will respond
to from you. I have to paint half of my house and empty my
garage within about a week.
>
If you can find some source that conclusively proves that
not all pure functions are computable functions I would like
to see it. All of the experts that I could find seem to agree
that all pure functions in C would be computable functions
by a Turing machine.

>
So, you just don't understand that "Computable Function" is a Term-of-the-art to talk about the mathematical mapping, an NOT the algorithm that shows the mapping is computable.
>

>
Pure functions <are> Turing computable functions until you
conclusively prove otherwise.

>
So, you still don't understand the meaning of the words.
>

>
>
Try and point out the specific error and I will correct any
mistake that you find. Until you provide a basis I will assume
that your claim is baseless.

>
"Correct Simulation" to show something about non-termination, must be per the methods of Computation Theory, which means like a UTM, which means it does not stop.
>

 It is essentially trivial to see that D correctly simulated by H
cannot possibly reach its own final state at line 06 because
D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation.

Which, due to your now clarified definition of what you mean by "correctly simulated" means absolutly NOTHING in regards to the behavior of the input.

 

A "Computable Function" isn't a program, but a mathematical concept of a mapping from the input set to the output set for which there exists an finite algoritm that computes it. (The program is that algorithm, not the Function).
>

 How do we tell if a C function is Turing Computable?

That Term doesn't apply to C funcitons at all, but to mathematical mappings.
Do you mean the computational equivalent of a Turing Machine?

 

Note also, a "Pure Function" and this algorithm are NOT exactly equivalent. Pure Function might take a hidden input that makes copies of the function not equivalent, breaking them form being the requirements of an algorithm, which is a bit stricter, as it requires that ALL COPIES return the same answer for the same inputs.
>

 These H/D pairs only simulate.

And thus your logic has divorsed itself from behavior of the machine described by the input, since your simulation is not "Correct" by the correct meaning.

 

Also, it is possible for an algorithm to violate the definiton of a "Pure Function" in certain limited manners, and still be a proper algorithm, the key is that the definition of an algorithm is a strictly Input to Output relationship, and doesn't talk about how the answer is given.
>

 I am saying that it must be a pure function.

And you would be wrong. I can show functions the Computational Equivalent of a Turing Machine that violate the requirement of not using static memory.

 

>

Your claim is like saying that cats are 10 story office building.
>

>

One key point that make "Pure Functions" not necessarily equivalent to a Turing Machine is the ability to get "hidden inputs" from things like their own program address, something a Turing Machine doesn't have.
>

>
*That is irrelevant to the current post*
*You can always look at the title and see if you went off topic*

>
No, you keep making the error, and thus destroy your arguement.
>

>
Since I am only responding to you via this single thread I
don't have to cut off the first divergence from the title.
>

>
>
*This boiler plate will be the only reply*
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.
>
>

>
And if you can't actually define your category or the thing to be analyzied you are just wasting your time, as if you don't know where you are going, it is hard to find the path.
>

>
The way I see it I defined it correctly and completely and you
are simply pretending otherwise. Until you prove otherwise I
will continue to assume this.

>
But since you can't clearly state it, it means we can't help you.
>

 I stated it perfectly and the proof of this is that
you did not point to any gaps in my spec.

Nope.

 

>
You seem to favor baseless rhetoric because you know that baseless
rhetoric with ad hominem mixed in is very convincing for gullible fools.
Gullible fools are outside of my target audience.
>

>
Nope, your deception seems to be an attempt to go after gullible fools.
>

 THE ONLY REASON THAT I WORK ON THIS IS TO MATHEMATICALLY
FORMALIZE THE NOTION OF TRUTH ITSELF SO THAT THE NAZI
LIARS CANNOT GET AWAY WITH THEIR LIES.

But since your logic is based on LIES, like that H(D,D) is allowed to say its input is non-halting when D(D) Halts, that seems unlikely.

 

If you where honest, you could post you whole arguement and let it be worked on.
>

 WE ARE ONLY TALKING ABOUT THE SUBJECT LINE OF THIS THREAD.

You said otherwise.

 

 From your past, the reason you need to break the arguement into pieces is you need to seperate to logic to allow a change of definition between the sections.
>

 IT IS BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE ENOUGH TIME LEFT TO TOLERATE
ENDLESS DEFECTION

So, why do you waste so much digging your heals on triva.
Just answer the questions and we can move on.

 

For instance, you definition here of correct simulation means your results can not be used to show non-halting.
>

 WE CAN GET TO THIS POINT AFTER WE FINISH THE SUBJECT OF THE THREAD
I DON'T HAVE ENOUGH TIME LEFT TO TOLERATE ENDLESS DEFECTION

Then you don't have time to just repeat the same request over and over.

 

My guess is in a later section, you will pull out the rule that if a correct simulation doesn't reach a final state, the input is non-halting, which is just a LIE because you have changed definition mid proof.
>
This has been your history.

 It is trivial to see 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.
 

Unless H aborts its simulation, which it must do to answer. And, since it does, that means the partial simulation it does, doesn't show that the machine in non-halting.
This is one reason you need to clarify you exact meaning. Since you have implied that your goal is about halting, you are stuck with the definitions from that, and to allow deviations, we need EXPLICIT agreement that these results can not be then just used to show non-halting, as that would be a lie.
Of course, if you admit that you aren't working on deciding halting, then you have just wasted you 20 years, so showing that you can POOP decider this one machine doesn't mean anything. The non-computability of Halting still can be used for all of the proofs it is part of.
And, if you want to revamp the logic system with new definitions, you are working at the wrong end, you need to go to the foundations, and start there, and fully define the axioms you are going to be using.