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

On 3/22/24 10:22 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/22/2024 9:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/22/24 2:41 PM, 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.
>

>
Except that it FAILS to meet your agreed upon definition of correctly deciding to abort, and uses the INVALID logic of comparing itself to a DIFFERENT machine.

 On 3/20/2024 6:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
 > On 3/20/24 6:01 PM, olcott wrote:
 >> Every H(D,D) that doesn't abort its simulated input
 >> never stops running.
 >
 > Yep, shows that H's that don't abort the D built on
 > them won't be deciders...
 Therefore Every H(D,D) that does abort its simulated input
is necessarily correct.

Nope.
Try to show an actual proof of that.
It is INVALID to use the behavior of a DIFFERENT program to prove something about this program.
Just shows you have no idea on how to actually do correct logic, you use about every fallacy in the book, thinking they are correct logic.

 I take your stalling tactic to indicate that a universal abort
decider may very well exist.
 

Nope, but that is just your own stupidity talking.