Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally?

On 5/2/24 2:05 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/2/2024 4:29 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 5/1/2024 5:01 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 4/30/2024 11:46 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 4/30/2024 10:44 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

>

[ .... ]

>

You are thus mistaken in believing "abnormal" termination isn't a
final state.

>

Again, we have no reply from you to this important point.  You've
failed to address any of the points I made, presumably because you
can't.

>

When we add the brand new idea of {simulating termination analyzer}
....

>

It is most unlikely to be "brand new", and even if it were, it would
most likely be useless and inconsequential.  But since you fail to
define it, we can only judge it by the reputation of its creator.

>

.... to the existing idea of TM's then we must be careful how we
define halting otherwise every infinite loop will be construed as
halting.

>

Complete Balderdash.  Define your "simulating termination analyzer",
or stop wasting people's time by talking about it.

>

int H(ptr x, ptr y); // 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 }

>

Is that it?  Is that tired old piece of copy and paste supposed to be a
mathematical definition?  It doesn't look like one to me.

>

Experts in the C language could directly confirm that no D simulated
by H can possible reach past its own line 3.

>
I am an expert in the C language, and it is abundantly clear that the
above assertion is meaningless without a clear specification for H.
Quite obviously, if H(x, x); on L3 returns zero, the program will proceed
to L6 and terminate.
>

 It turns out that {D is simulated by H} is a sufficiently complete
specification.
 

Everyone here has perpetually pretended that they did not understand
this so I had to get an outsider to confirm this:

>
It's not a matter of "understanding".  It's you that lacks understanding,
not everybody else.
>

 If that was true then four people would not have been able
to correctly answer the question.
 

On 6/14/2022 6:47 AM, Paul N wrote:

Yes, it is clear to us humans watching it that the program is
repeating itself. Thus we can appreciate that it will never reach the
final "ret" - indeed, it won't even get to the infinite loop
identified above.

>
Thanks for the citation.  But it's unclear precisely what Paul N was
agreeing to.

 *It was clear enough for Richard to agree yesterday*
http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3C1a63f362-31ad-4d75-b339-f91b2d95ea00n%40googlegroups.com%3E
 

You're not known for expressing your ideas clearly and
permanently - the symbols and terms you use are usually vaguely defined
at best, and change their precise meaning over time, and from post to
post.
>

 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 }
 

(a) It is a verified fact that D(D) simulated by H cannot
possibly reach past line 03 of D(D) simulated by H whether H
aborts its simulation or not.

>

That's a barefaced lie.  Who has done such "verification", how, and
when,

>

Two experts in the C programming language and two people with masters
degrees in computer science.

>
Their names, please.  And the dates and places of their "verifications",
too.
>

 No. What I said is self-evidently true. If you are an expert
at C and don't see that it is self-evidently true you are
either playing head games or exaggerating your C skill.
*Try and find a counter-example* That none exists proves
that I am correct.

Since  I presented two counter examples, which you have not even attempted to find a problem with, you are just admitting that you are nothing but a LIAR.
To deny the existanc oe something that has been shown is just like (if not worse than) the election deniers saying the there was massive fraud that changed the election.
Actually, a lot worse, They at least can use the priciple that lack of evidence is not evidence of lack (there could be evidence that we just don't see), but in your case, there IS evidence that you just refuse to look at and process.
Proving you are just a pathological liar that can't handle the truth.

 

Basically everyone that knows C very well and tell the truth.

>
I know C exceptionally well, and always tell the truth on Usenet.  It's
clear to me your (a) is at best problematic.  Richard has pointed out
some of these problems, and you have failed to address them.

 Richard pointed out the when *D is not simulated by H*
then (a) is not met yet (a) requires that *D is simulated by H*
So Richard was not paying any attention at all.
 

Nope, I guess you don't understand that 0 is a number, so simulating for 0 steps CAN be consisdered a simulation by basic logic.
After all, you consider not simulating the Call H instruction to be a correct simulation.

 Again, it's
unclear what these experts (if they exist) were saying, what they were
saying it about, and whether they were answering sincerely, or just
getting a crank off their backs with as little effort as possible.
>

If you lack sufficient technical expertise to understand this
easily verified fact then you are unqualified to evaluate my work.

>
There you go again.  Your (a) is not a fact, much less verified.

 When Richard tried to find a counter-example his
"counter-example" merely proved that he was not paying
any attention at all. Try and provide your own
counter-example.

Nope.
Just shows you don't understand what I was talking about.
Your "definition" of the correct answer allows virtual all "program" to be declaired non-halting if they do not IMMEDIATELY halt.
That is because H's simulation of course can't reach the final state if the H aborts its simulation before it gets there, as by quickly aborting, H can show that H can't simulate to the final state, since it didn't.

 

 My
understanding of it is not in question.  It is you who appear to lack
sufficient understanding to work in this area of mathematics.
>

 We are not yet beginning to talk about mathematics.
We are only talking about the behavior of an infinite
set of H/D pair C functions.

But you haven't been able to define what you actually mean about that.
If you have an infinite set of machines as the input, some that halt and some don't, what it *THE* answer?
You ere just demonstrating that you don't understand how to define what you are trying to do, likely because "definitions" are a basis for "Truth" and you have decided that trivial things like that can't get in your way of proving this idea you have.

 Changing the subject it no longer a form of rebuttal
that I can tolerate because of my POD24 diagnosis.

And your failure to handle the errors shown in your logic is just burning your limited time you have left.
If you want to get somewhere, and the path you are trying doesn't seem to get you there, it is just insanity to keep on trying the same thing over and over.

 Validation of POD24 as a robust early clinical end point of poor survival in FL from 5225 patients on 13 clinical trials
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34614146/
 After we have mutual agreement that (a) is a verified
then we can move on to the next point.

But to get there, you need to show how to disprove my two examples that shouw your claim wrong.
That, or you are just admitting that you don't actually care about finding the truth, but are just interested in seeing who you can get to fall for your lies.

 

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

>