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

On 6/16/24 8:37 AM, olcott wrote:

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. Until I invented a simulating
halt decider no one ever noticed that D correctly simulated by H
could have different behavior that the directly executed D(D).

inputs, which are just strings, don't HAVE behvior, only wht they rerpresent.
By DEFINITION, the inputs to a Halt Decider represent the Macine being asked about, and its input.
That Machine has behavior, and for these cases, it halts, so you H is just proved incorrect in its answer. And that you are a liar.
And no one noticed that D correctly simulated by H could have a different behavior, because it can't. That is just you lying to yourself about what is correct.

 No one ever noticed that the pathological relationship of D
calling its own decider changed the behavior of D because
everyone rejected simulation out-of-hand without review.

Nope. I remember looking at them when I was young, so you are just being the prototypical "russian" claiming you invented everything.

 

non-halting. No relation with doing the opposite of what H predicts.
This happens for DDD as well. Just a false negative. No relation with doing the opposite of what H predicts.
Even in the case of D, it is just a false negative, because even olcott admits that his simulation does not process the part where D does the opposite of what H predicts.