Liste des Groupes | Revenir à s logic |
Op 27.mrt.2024 om 20:36 schreef olcott:Oh you are just flat out lying, I get it.On 3/27/2024 2:09 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:Why denying easily verified facts?Op 27.mrt.2024 om 15:09 schreef olcott:>On 3/27/2024 4:55 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:>Op 26.mrt.2024 om 15:43 schreef olcott:>On 3/26/2024 3:51 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:>Op 25.mrt.2024 om 23:50 schreef olcott:>On 3/24/2024 11:42 AM, Mikko wrote:>On 2024-03-24 03:39:12 +0000, olcott said:>
>On 3/23/2024 9:54 PM, immibis wrote:>On 24/03/24 03:40, olcott wrote:>On 3/23/2024 9:34 PM, immibis wrote:>On 24/03/24 03:15, olcott wrote:>On 3/23/2024 8:40 PM, immibis wrote:>On 24/03/24 00:29, olcott wrote:>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
Tough shit. That is the requirement.
I proved otherwise in the parts you erased.
You proved that the requirement is not actually the requirement?
I proved that it cannot be a coherent requirement, it can still
be an incoherent requirement. Try and think it through for yourself.
Every program/input pair either halts some time, or never halts.
Determining this is a coherent requirement.
That part is coherent.
The part that this determination must be done by a Turing machine
using descriptions of the program and input is coherent, too.
>
Every decider is required by definition to only report on what
this input specifies.
>
int sum(int x, int y){ return x + y; }
sum(3,4) is not allowed to report on the sum of 5 + 6
even if you really really believe that it should.
>
Exactly! Therefore H(D,D), where D is based on H that aborts and returns false, so that D halts, should not return a report about another D that does not halt, even if you really really believe that it should.
There is enough information for sum(3,4) to compute the sum of 3+4.
There is NOT enough information for sum(3,4) to compute the sum of 5+6.
>
There is enough information for H1(D,D) to compute Halts(D,D).
There is NOT enough information for H(D,D) to compute Halts(D,D).
>
But it is possible to create a simulating sum decider that aborts sum and returns the sum of 5+6 and then claim that it is right, because it has not enough information to calculate 3+4. It is possible, but wrong.
The only reason it has not enough information, is that it aborts prematurely. That makes the decision to abort wrong. This holds for H as well.
Why are you denying reality?
Olcott is frustrated, but wrong.
>>>
Can D correctly simulated by H terminate normally?
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 }
>
*Execution Trace*
Line 11: main() invokes H(D,D);
>
*keeps repeating* (unless aborted)
Line 03: simulated D(D) invokes simulated H(D,D) that simulates D(D)
Wrong. Should be:
*will return false* (unless aborted)
There is no possible way that D simulated by any H ever
returns false whether its simulation has been aborted or not.
Are you fibbing about your programming skill?
-->Line 03: simulated D(D) invokes simulated H(D,D) that aborts and returns false. So D will continue with line 04 (ubnless aborted)>
Why denying verified facts?
D is the D that calls the H that aborts and returns false. That H is wrong is no reason to assume that D calls another H that keeps simulating.
>>>
*Simulation invariant*
D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.
>
Proven wrong.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.