Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally?

On 4/28/24 2:54 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/28/2024 1:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 4/28/24 2:19 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/28/2024 1:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 4/28/24 1:50 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/28/2024 11:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 4/28/24 11:33 AM, olcott wrote:

On 4/28/2024 10:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 4/28/24 9:52 AM, olcott wrote:

On 4/28/2024 8:19 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 4/28/24 8:56 AM, olcott wrote:

On 4/28/2024 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-04-28 00:17:48 +0000, olcott said:
>

Can D simulated by H terminate normally?

>
One should not that "D simulated by H" is not the same as
"simulation of D by H". The message below seems to be more
about the latter than the former. In any case, it is more
about the properties of H than about the properties of D.
>

>
D specifies what is essentially infinite recursion to H.
Several people agreed that D simulated by H cannot possibly
reach past its own line 03 no matter what H does.

>
Nope, it is only that if H fails to be a decider.
>

>
*We don't make this leap of logic. I never used the term decider*
*We don't make this leap of logic. I never used the term decider*
*We don't make this leap of logic. I never used the term decider*
*We don't make this leap of logic. I never used the term decider*

>
>
You admit that people see that as being a claim about the Halting Problem, and thus the implied definitons of the terms apply.
>

>
The only way to get people to understand that I am correct
and thus not always ignore my words and leap to the conclusion
that I must be wrong is to insist that they review every single
detail of all of my reasoning one tiny step at a time.
>
>

>
No, the way to get people to understand what you are saying is to use the standard terminology, and start with what people will accept and move to what is harder to understand.
>
People have no obligation to work in the direction you want them to.
>
Yes, when you speak non-sense, people will ignore you, because what you speak is non-sense.
>
You are just proving that you don't understand how to perform logic, or frame a persuasive arguement.
>
That fact that as far as we can tell, your "logic" is based on you making up things and trying to form justifications for them, just makes people unwilling to attempt to "accept" your wild ideas to see what might make sense.
>

>
Linguistic determinism is the concept that language and its structures
limit and determine human knowledge or thought, as well as thought
processes such as categorization, memory, and perception.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_determinism

>
So? Since formal logic isn't based on Linguistics, it doesn't directly impact it. IT might limit the forms we
>

>
Some of the technical "terms of the art" box people into misconceptions
for which there is no escape. Some of the technical "terms of the art"
I perfectly agree with.
>
*Important technical "term of the art" that I totally agree with*
Computable functions are the formalized analogue of the intuitive notion
of algorithms, in the sense that a function is computable if there
exists an algorithm that can do the job of the function, i.e. given an
input of the function domain it can return the corresponding output. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function

>
But you seem to miss that Halting isn't a "Computable Function", as Turing Proved.
>

>
Even the term "halting" is problematic.
For 15 years I thought it means stops running for any reason.

>
And that shows your STUPIDITY, not an error in the Theory.
>

Now I know that it means reaches the final state. Half the
people here may not know that.

>
No, I suspect most of the people here are smarter than that.
>

>
What Turing proved or did not prove requires carefully
examining every tiny step and not simply leaping to the
conclusion that Turing was right therefore I am wrong.

>
Turing PROVED he was right with a rigorous proof that has been examined by many people and no errors found.
>
You just admitted that you have been working under wrong definitions, and have no grounds to claim you understand all (or any) of what you talk about.
>
Yet, you have the gaul to claim that you must be right and everyone else is wrong, just after admitting that you have been wrong for most of the time.
>

>

>

You claim you want to work in a manner to save time, but then seem to explicitly go on a tack that will force you to waste time by needing to return to your prior points when you change the definition and prove them again.
>

>
I am only interested in an actual honest dialogue. Because of this I
must insist that any dialogue must go through every single detail of
my reasoning one tiny nuance of a point at time.

>
So, why do you insist that people must do it YOUR way.
>

>
I insist that people go over every single detail of my reasoning
instead of saying "no matter what you say Turing was right therefore
you are wrong".

>
But since your "reasoning" begins by making dodgy assumptions, people are going to reject that from the start. And then you insist that people start by accepting your dodgy assumptions, with a promise to prove them later. START by proving them, and maybe people will look at your work.
>

*I start at the very beginning with no assumptions what-so-ever*
*I start at the very beginning with no assumptions what-so-ever*
*I start at the very beginning with no assumptions what-so-ever*
 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   H(D,D);
12 }
 Simulating termination analyzer H determines whether or not
D(D) simulated by H can possibly reach its final state at its
own line 06 and halt whether or not H aborts its simulation.
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
 (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.
 

So, with no assumptions or definitions we can not answer the question as you use terms without definition.
After all, there was a proposed version of H that when it say D(D) call H(D,D) it simulated two paths of return, one returning 0 and one returning 1, so it is clear that SOME H is able to simulate the input D(D) past the call H.
So, I guess that actually says that with no restrictions on what H does, there are H's that can simulate to line 03, so (a) is verified to be untrue.
Now that version determined that neither of its attempts ended up being an accurate simulation (and thus tried to answer with a non-answering abort which violated the definition).