Re: No one can correctly refute that simulating abort decider A(D,D) is correct

On 3/27/24 11:09 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/27/2024 9:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/27/24 10:13 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/27/2024 8:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/27/24 9:10 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/27/2024 7:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/27/24 4:10 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/27/2024 2:57 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 27.mrt.2024 om 20:04 schreef olcott:

01 void B(ptr x) // ptr is pointer to void function
02 {
03   A(x, x);
04   return;
05 }
06
07 void main()
08 {
09   A(B,B);
10 }
>
*Execution Trace*
Line 09: main() invokes A(B,B);
>
*keeps repeating* (unless aborted)

That is a premature conclusion when A is not specified.

>
*simulating abort decider* A(D,D)
*simulating abort decider* A(D,D)
*simulating abort decider* A(D,D)
*simulating abort decider* A(D,D)

>
Which just shows your ignorance as that doesn't define what A actually is, or needs to do.
>
You are just demonstrating that you don't know what you are talking about.
>

>

It holds if A does not halt. If A returns, then B will halt (unless aborted).

>
If you honestly don't see that no A can possible return to
any simulated B then you lied about your programming skill.
Otherwise you can see this and are lying about it.

>
It may not be able to simulate a B to the point of seeing an A return to it,

>
*That is the behavior that an abort decider must report on*
*That is the behavior that an abort decider must report on*
*That is the behavior that an abort decider must report on*
>
It is not possible to CORRECTLY simulate a B to the point of seeing
an A return to it because A calls B in recursive simulation.
>

>
Nope, it IS possible to simulate any B to the point of seeing A return,

>
It is impossible for A(B,B) to simulate its input such that any
A ever returns to any B simulated by A because B calls A in recursive
simulation.
>

>
And if the "Definition" of the answer is based on it "Correctly Simulating its input", which it can not do, then you have a problem with your definitions.
>

 Every A(B,B) simulates its input until it sees the same thing
that you an I have seen for two years.

Which is an INCORECT condition for aborting, as it matches some machines that do not need there simulation to be aborted.

 

Your problem is you keep on forgetting that at any given time and example, A is a SPECIFIC program, with SPECIFIC behavior and it will either simulate and not abort and not answer, or abort and not show what its input does.

 I never forget that.
I KNOW THAT IRRELEVANT DIFFERENCES ARE IRRELEVANT
I KNOW THAT IRRELEVANT DIFFERENCES ARE IRRELEVANT
I KNOW THAT IRRELEVANT DIFFERENCES ARE IRRELEVANT

But you seem to think that some RELEVERNT differences are IRrelevant, showing you are just stupid.
If it makes a difference to the answer, it is relevent.

 

>
We can use ANOTHER simulator (perhaps a different version of A, and give it THIS B, connect with that original A, and not itself) to see the right answer.
>

 Every H(D,D) that simulates its input and does not abort
that simulation is wrong.
 Every H(D,D) that simulates its input and does abort
that simulation is correct about this abort decision.

Nope.
Just more of your LIES.

 

If you can't do that, then you Computation system is just too weak to be of any interest.
>
Yes, you may be able to establish what you want to establish, but only by admittng that you system is FAR from being "Turing Complete", and

 The same thing works for the Linz H but all the time that
you ridiculously persistently deny easily verified facts
I cannot trust you with that additional complexity.

Nope, just more of your lies.
You have so seered you concience you can not tell what is actually true anymore.

 You must totally accept that H(D,D) is a correct abort decider
for its input before we can move on.

SO, I guess we can't move on, as I can not accept an incorrect decider to be a correct one.
*I* value what is true.

 

thus not any where NEAR being a usable replacement for the actual Computation Theory and its Halting Question.