Re: Can any pathological input thwart a simulating abort decider?

On Fri, 2024-03-22 at 14:10 -0500, olcott wrote:

On 3/22/2024 1:58 PM, wij wrote:

On Fri, 2024-03-22 at 13:41 -0500, olcott wrote:

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 }
>
H is a simulating abort decider that supposed to
correctly determine whether or not it needs to abort
the simulation of any pathological inputs that are
attempting to thwart this abort decision.
>
H must abort every simulated input that would not
otherwise halt to prevent its own non-termination.
>
It is a self-evident verified fact that every H(D,D)
that decides to abort its simulated D(D) is correct
in doing so because this does prevent its own
non-termination.
>

>
In you program listing above (1) H can only return 0, it does not determine anything.

>
I never mentioned any return value and return values are out-of-scope
for this post.
>
In this post we are only looking for a counter-example that can thwart
simulating abort decider H.
>
It is a self-evidently correct verified fact that every implementation
of H(D,D) that aborts its simulation to prevent its otherwise non-
termination is correct in doing so.
>

(2) and, H is empty, there is no code to determine "pathological input", and who
decide "pathological", you or program?
>

>
It is stipulated that every implementation of H(D,D) simulates
its input D(D).
>

 Agree what you say here and now.
One thing I care about is that if you insist that POOH solves the halting problem,
there would be many problems.