Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3

On 4/27/24 1:34 AM, olcott wrote:

On 4/26/2024 10:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 4/26/24 11:02 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/26/2024 9:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 4/26/24 9:43 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/26/2024 7:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 4/26/24 8:02 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/26/2024 12:05 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/26/2024 11:19 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 4/26/24 11:34 AM, olcott wrote:

On 4/26/2024 3:32 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-04-25 14:15:20 +0000, olcott said:

01 int D(ptr x)  // ptr is pointer to int function
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   D(D);
12 }
>
That H(D,D) must report on the behavior of its caller is the
one that is incorrect.

>
What H(D,D) must report is independet of what procedure (if any)
calls it.
>

>
Thus when H(D,D) correctly reports that its input D(D) cannot possibly
reach its own line 6 and halt no matter what H does then H can abort its
input and report that its input D(D) does not halt.

>
But since the program D(D) DOES reach its own line 6 when run, because H aborts its simulation and return 0 (since that is what you say this H will do), your statement is PROVEN TO BE A LIE, and you "logic" just a collection of contradictions.
>

>
D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own line 06 thus when we do
not use the strawman deception to refer to a different D then we know
that D simulated by H never halts.
>

>
The fact that the D(D) executed in main does halt is none of H's
business because H is not allowed to report on the behavior of its
caller.
>

>
In other words, H doesn't need to report on the Behavior of the Program described by its input because it isn't actually a Halt Decider, because you are just a LIAR.
>
>

>
Anyone knowing the theory of computation knows that H is not allowed to
report on the behavior of its caller.
>
In computability theory and computational complexity theory, an
undecidable problem is a decision problem for which it is proved to be
impossible to construct an algorithm that always leads to a correct yes-
or-no answer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undecidable_problem
>
The behavior of the simulated D(D) before H aborts its simulation is
different than the behavior of the executed D(D) after H has aborted
its simulation.
>
Every time that a simulated input would never stop running unless
aborted the simulating termination analyzer must abort this simulation
to prevent its own infinite execution.
>
H(D,D) is a case of this H1(D,D) is not a case of this even though
the only difference between H and H1 is that D calls H and D does
not call H1.
>
D simulated by H would never stop running unless aborted and cannot
possibly reach its own line 06 and halt no matter what H does.
>
Thus whenever we do not use the strawman deception to refer to a
different D we know that D simulated by H specifies a non-halting
sequence of configurations to H.
>

>
*This might be a more succinct way of summing that up*
When you understand that D simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own line 03 (thus cannot possibly halt) no matter what H does and

>
But since H does whatever H does, if H aborts and returns 0, the the direct execution of D, which is what actually matters, DOES get to that point.
>

>
That is another much less useful way to make a universally correct
termination analyzer:
>
int H(ptr x, ptr y)
{
   printf("The input program does whatever it does!\n");
   return 777; // code for it does what it does
}

>
But that doesn't make H answer the question.
>
I guess you don't understand what I am saying.
>
You said "no matter what H does", but that is a MEANINGLESS statement, because H will do what H is programmed to do, so we don't need to look at other behavior, but just the behavior that H ac
>

>
It can be verified through ordinary software engineering that D(D)
simulated H cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.

>
>
Yes, but that is just a lying RED HERRING, as the question isn't about what H's simulation of the input does, but what the program the input actually represents does when run.
>
YOu are just effectively admitting that you are nothing but a stupid liar that doesn't know what he is talking about.
>

>
It can be verified through computer science that this means that D(D) simulated H by never reaches its own final state and halts whether
H aborts its simulation or not.

>
Which, since this H DOES abort its simulation is trying to introduce a red herring.
>

>
D(D) simulated by H never halts
D(D) simulated by H never halts
D(D) simulated by H never halts
D(D) simulated by H never halts
D(D) simulated by H never halts

>
STRAWMAN

 A method that I used very effectively on another forum and made much
progress with is utterly insisting that we cannot move on to any
additional point until we have 100% complete mutual agreement on
the current point.
 (1) If we (possibly falsely assume) that H(D,D) is supposed to report
on the behavior of D(D) simulated by H and
 (2) we understand that D(D) simulated by H cannot possibly reach past
its own line 3 thus cannot reach its own final state at line 6 and halt
 then (within this possibly false assumption) (1) and the understanding of (2) it <is> correct for H to abort its simulation and report halting.
 

Let go to actual DEFINITIONS shall we.
What do you define the Halting Problem to be?
I say, it is asking if it is possible to create a program that takes as its sole input, the description of any another program, and its input, and always returns an answer to indicate if that program, when run with that data, will come to a halt in finite time.
What is Halitng?
Halting is the state of a program reaching a final instruction that causes the program to cease running.
What is a Program?
A Program is a finite combination of deterministic instructions in the form of an algorithm that manipulate the data (and only the data) provided as an input to the program or state previously determined by the processing, or constants provided by the algorithm.
And, while I don't need it for my answer, you do, so
What is a Correct Simulation of a program?
A Correct Simulation is the processing of a description of a program that determines what that program will actually do when run.
You say we have differing "assumptions" of the system. Those are my "assumptions" (not actually assumptions but the definitions of the field expressed in my words).
What are yours, and if they differ, how do you actually justify using a definition that differs from the actual definition?
That would be like being asked about dogs, but saying I will define a cat to be a dog, and then answer about cats.
Failure to respond to my list of "assumptions" with your own well definied list will mean that you accept my definitions as what you are using.
As to  you question above:
(1) H is NOT supposed to answer about if its input can be simulated by it, but about if the program will halt when run.
Yes, the concept of a Universal Turing Machine says that we can replace that direct running by the simulation of a UTM, but such simulations only show non-halting when the "simulator" is actually a UTM which, by its definition, will never stop its simulation. Since your H is allowed to stop its simulation, is simulation is NOT a valid replacement for the Halting Property. Thus, H was NEVER supposed to report on if it could simulate its input to a final state, and thus your whole arguement is based on an initial false assumption.
(2) Yes, H can not simulate the program D beyond that point, but that doesn't mean that the execution, which is what actaully matters, can't get there, as it will if the H called terminates its simulation and returns a value, which actually IS what your H does, by your stated conclusion, so, by the stated definition of what H is supposed to do to be correct, means that your statement (2) is just irrelevent.