Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem

Liste des GroupesRevenir à theory 
Sujet : Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem
De : richard (at) *nospam* damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Groupes : comp.theory
Date : 12. Jun 2025, 15:28:01
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <6494b7b3ff6f7f34016106b3faaea744ef39a94d@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 6/11/25 10:34 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/11/2025 8:23 PM, wij wrote:
On Wed, 2025-06-11 at 19:52 -0500, olcott wrote:
On 6/11/2025 7:34 PM, wij wrote:
On Wed, 2025-06-11 at 19:20 -0500, olcott wrote:
On 6/11/2025 7:03 PM, wij wrote:
On Wed, 2025-06-11 at 18:45 -0500, olcott wrote:
On 6/11/2025 6:25 PM, wij wrote:
On Wed, 2025-06-11 at 17:33 -0500, olcott wrote:
On 6/11/2025 4:57 PM, wij wrote:
On Wed, 2025-06-11 at 16:44 -0500, olcott wrote:
On 6/11/2025 4:23 PM, wij wrote:
On Wed, 2025-06-11 at 16:10 -0500, olcott wrote:
On 6/11/2025 3:59 PM, wij wrote:
On Wed, 2025-06-11 at 15:30 -0500, olcott wrote:
On 6/11/2025 2:45 PM, wij wrote:
On Wed, 2025-06-11 at 14:39 -0500, olcott wrote:
On 6/11/2025 2:31 PM, wij wrote:
On Wed, 2025-06-11 at 14:14 -0500, olcott wrote:
On 6/11/2025 1:25 PM, wij wrote:
On Wed, 2025-06-11 at 12:59 -0500, olcott wrote:
>
Yes all other people (especially Dennis Bush) are saying
that H(D) is required to report on the behavior of the
direct execution of D() never noticing that this stupidly
requires H(D) to report on the behavior of its caller.
>
If the H above means the H that the HP refers to. The H is
required to
report its argument's behavior (ie. by H(D)). But NOT required
by
simulation.
>
It turns out that no one ever noticed that simulating halt
deciders nullify the HP counter-example input in that this
input cannot possibly reach its contradictory part.
>
The HP does not care what D does (simply to say).
>
>
Everyone says that H(D) must re[port on the behavior of
the direct execution of D().
>
That is what the HP asks.
>
The HP only requires: H(D)==1 iff D() halts
>
>
>
int main()
{
             D(); // calls H(D)
}
>
Which requires H(D) to report on the behavior of its
caller instead of reporting on the behavior that its
input actually specifies.
>
That is no problem. H does not care what D does inside (simply to
say).
The HP simply asks for a H that "H(D)==1 iff D() halts".
>
>
Which requires H to report on something that it cannot possibly see.
>
On the contrary, what the HP proves is very useful.
>
>
I am not talking about the halting problem, I have always
been talking about the conventional halting problem proof.
THIS PROOF IS WRONG
>
When talking about proof, we say it is valid or not. By doing so, we have
to unambiguously pose the problem and the derivation to the conclusion.
The HP proof just did that.
>
>
It may seem that way if you pay less than 100%
complete attention.
>
The HP proof depends on an *INPUT* that does
the opposite of whatever value that H returns
and no such *INPUT* can possibly exist.
>
That is absolutely correct. No such *INPUT* (i.e. D) can possible exit is
because
the H inside D does not exist at all.
So, if the H is assumed to exist, then D will exist to make H undecidable.
>
>
There is no *input* to any termination analyzer
that can do the opposite of whatever value that
this termination analyzer returns
>
Your reinterpretation of of HP case is wrong.
Your D or H is not the case mention in the HP proof.
>
>
There cannot possibly exist any D mine or
anyone else's that is encoded to do the opposite
of whatever value that H returns.
>
Why not? D and H are supposed to be TM (or C function).
If the D cannot do the opposite of whatever value that H returns, then
that D is not powerful enough to be a TM, not an interesting case.
>
>
Can you be your biological mother's biological father?
>
What is the same reason? What's the relationship of 1+1=2 relates to HP?
>
It is for this same reason that the function's caller
cannot simultaneously be its input.
>
D and H belong to the same set of TM equivalent stuff.
>
Yes and we have the exact same issue with TM's it
is merely more difficult to see.
>
I am not going to get into that until after you totally
understand this at the C level. I am unwilling to talk
about this endlessly in circles.
>
The problem is that you don't know TM and C as 1-year CS student does.
All the people here have problem to get the answer fits your level of understanding.
>
D has to be able to perform exactly H's function (if D is a TM and if H exists).
Otherwise, that D is not the counter-example mentioned in the HP proof.
>
I have to covered too. Unless you understand that
D cannot be both an input to H and its caller there
is no sense going there.
>
If it (D) cannot be both an input to H and its caller, that D is no resemble of
the counter-example mentioned in the HP proof. You made a crippled D.
>
>
>
No D that anyone in the universe can define
can simultaneously be the caller of a function
and the input to the same function.
>
Then, what does your example mean?
>
void D() {
    H(D);
}
>
D cannot simultaneously be the caller of a function
and the input to the same function?
Are you refuting what you said?
>
>
If you don't understand the difference between object
instances of OOP classes and the classes themselves
then you might not understand.
>
OK. its now OOP and C++'s class. Where are they?
Are you honest about what you said?
>
int main()
{
    D(); // calls H(D) and the parameter to this H(D)
}      // is not the caller of this instance of H(D)
>
>
Where is H? Are you talking about Halting Problem?
>
 D() is my DDD() and H() is my HHH().
HHH is a termination analyzer.
 https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
My DD() is the Halting Problem counter-example
 int DD()
{
   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}
 HHH(DD) correctly rejects its input.
 
Nope.
Since by your stipulation that DD is the counter example program, the call to HHH(DD) must mean the asking of HHH whether the program DD when run will halt or not.
Any other meaning says you are lying.
Since you say that HHH(DD) returns 0 to reject the input as non-halting, but you have also in the past admitted (and it is easily proven) that the direct running of DD() will halt, and that is the property that the question asks, then since the answer did not agree with what happened, HHH is just wrong, and you claims it is correct are just lies.
If you try to say that the input some how specifies something else, then, as poited out before, your statement that this is the counter-example program of the proof is just a lie.
This has been explained to you enough, that is can not be an honest mistake, but a deliberate and reckless disregarding of the truth.
That, or you need to retreat to the state of admitting you are just mentally incompentent to understand any of the things you are talking about, or the fact that it is illogical to talk about something you don't undertstand.
So, which is it? LIAR or IDIOT?

Date Sujet#  Auteur
29 May 25 * Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem238olcott
30 May 25 +- Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem1Richard Damon
30 May 25 `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem236Mikko
30 May 25  `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem235olcott
31 May 25   +* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem175Richard Damon
31 May 25   i`* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem174olcott
31 May 25   i +* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem168dbush
31 May 25   i i`* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem167olcott
31 May 25   i i +* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem165dbush
31 May 25   i i i`* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem164olcott
31 May 25   i i i `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem163dbush
31 May 25   i i i  `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem162Mike Terry
1 Jun 25   i i i   `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem161olcott
1 Jun 25   i i i    +* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem159Mike Terry
1 Jun 25   i i i    i`* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem158olcott
1 Jun 25   i i i    i `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem157Mike Terry
1 Jun 25   i i i    i  `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem156olcott
1 Jun 25   i i i    i   +- Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem1Richard Damon
1 Jun 25   i i i    i   +- Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem1dbush
1 Jun 25   i i i    i   `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem153Mike Terry
1 Jun 25   i i i    i    +* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem13olcott
2 Jun 25   i i i    i    i+* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem3Richard Damon
2 Jun 25   i i i    i    ii`* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem2olcott
2 Jun 25   i i i    i    ii `- Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem1Richard Damon
2 Jun 25   i i i    i    i`* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem9Mike Terry
2 Jun 25   i i i    i    i `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem8olcott
2 Jun 25   i i i    i    i  +* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem3Fred. Zwarts
2 Jun 25   i i i    i    i  i`* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem2olcott
3 Jun 25   i i i    i    i  i `- Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem1Richard Damon
2 Jun 25   i i i    i    i  `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem4Mike Terry
2 Jun 25   i i i    i    i   `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem3olcott
2 Jun 25   i i i    i    i    `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem2Mike Terry
2 Jun 25   i i i    i    i     `- Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem1olcott
2 Jun 25   i i i    i    +- Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem1olcott
3 Jun 25   i i i    i    +* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem137Mike Terry
3 Jun 25   i i i    i    i+* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem5André G. Isaak
3 Jun 25   i i i    i    ii`* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem4olcott
3 Jun 25   i i i    i    ii `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem3André G. Isaak
3 Jun 25   i i i    i    ii  `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem2olcott
3 Jun 25   i i i    i    ii   `- Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem1André G. Isaak
3 Jun 25   i i i    i    i+* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem5olcott
3 Jun 25   i i i    i    ii+- Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem1Fred. Zwarts
3 Jun 25   i i i    i    ii`* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem3Richard Damon
3 Jun 25   i i i    i    ii `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem2olcott
4 Jun 25   i i i    i    ii  `- Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem1Richard Damon
3 Jun 25   i i i    i    i`* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem126dbush
3 Jun 25   i i i    i    i +* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem117Mike Terry
3 Jun 25   i i i    i    i i+* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem114wij
3 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii`* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem113olcott
4 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii +- Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem1Richard Damon
4 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem111Mikko
4 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii  `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem110olcott
6 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii   `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem109Mikko
6 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii    `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem108olcott
7 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii     `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem107Mikko
7 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii      `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem106olcott
8 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii       +- Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem1Richard Damon
8 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii       `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem104Mikko
8 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii        `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem103olcott
8 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii         +- Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem1Richard Damon
10 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii         `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem101Mikko
10 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii          `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem100olcott
10 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii           +- Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem1Richard Damon
11 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii           `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem98Mikko
11 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii            `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem97olcott
11 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             +* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem49wij
11 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             i`* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem48olcott
11 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             i `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem47wij
11 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             i  `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem46olcott
11 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             i   `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem45wij
11 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             i    `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem44olcott
11 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             i     `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem43wij
11 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             i      `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem42olcott
11 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             i       `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem41wij
11 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             i        `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem40olcott
11 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             i         +* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem38wij
11 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             i         i`* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem37olcott
11 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             i         i +* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem35wij
11 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             i         i i`* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem34olcott
11 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             i         i i `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem33wij
11 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             i         i i  `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem32olcott
11 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             i         i i   `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem31wij
11 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             i         i i    `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem30olcott
11 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             i         i i     `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem29wij
11 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             i         i i      +- Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem1wij
11 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             i         i i      `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem27olcott
11 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             i         i i       `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem26wij
11 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             i         i i        `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem25olcott
11 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             i         i i         `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem24wij
11 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             i         i i          `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem23olcott
12 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             i         i i           +* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem21wij
12 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             i         i i           i`* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem20olcott
12 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             i         i i           i `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem19wij
12 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             i         i i           i  `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem18olcott
12 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             i         i i           i   +* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem10wij
12 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             i         i i           i   i`* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem9olcott
12 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             i         i i           i   i +* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem3wij
12 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             i         i i           i   i i`* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem2olcott
12 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             i         i i           i   i i `- Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem1Richard Damon
12 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             i         i i           i   i `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem5Fred. Zwarts
12 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             i         i i           i   i  `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem4olcott
12 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             i         i i           i   `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem7joes
12 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             i         i i           `- Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem1Richard Damon
11 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             i         i `- Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem1Richard Damon
11 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             i         `- Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem1Richard Damon
11 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             +- Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem1Richard Damon
12 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem46Mikko
3 Jun 25   i i i    i    i i`* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem2olcott
3 Jun 25   i i i    i    i `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem8olcott
3 Jun 25   i i i    i    `- Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem1Mikko
1 Jun 25   i i i    `- Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem1Richard Damon
31 May 25   i i `- Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem1Richard Damon
31 May 25   i `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem5Richard Damon
1 Jun 25   `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem59Mikko

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal