Sujet : Re: Categorically exhaustive reasoning applied to the decision to abort
De : polcott2 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 24. Mar 2024, 01:29:32
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <utnoks$3ttm3$2@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 3/23/2024 5:58 PM, immibis wrote:
On 23/03/24 16:02, olcott wrote:
(b) H(D,D) that DOES abort its simulation is correct
(ABOUT THIS ABORT DECISION)
because it would halt and all deciders must always halt.
To be a decider it has to give an answer.
To be a halt decider it has to give an answer that is the same as whether the direct execution of its input would halt.
That would entail that H must report on different behavior
than the behavior that H actually sees thus violate the
definition of a decider that must compute the mapping from
its inputs...
On 3/22/2024 9:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> The problem is that even if the "C function" D is
> the same machine code, the fact that it calls an
> external H means *the code of H affects its*
> *behavior, and that must be taken into account*
Nicholas J. Macias. *Context-Dependent Functions*
Narrowing the Realm of Turing’s Halting Problem
13 Nov 2014
https://arxiv.org/abs/1501.03018arXiv:1501.03018 [cs.LO]
The concept of a "Context-Dependent Function" (CDF),
whose behavior varies based on seemingly irrelevant
changes to a program calling that function, is introduced,
and the proof of HP's undecidability is re-examined in
light of CDFs. (quoted from the above paper)
-- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Geniushits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer