Re: Can an abort decider be defined that cannot be fooled by any pathological input?

On 3/27/24 11:58 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/27/2024 9:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/27/24 10:07 PM, olcott wrote:

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

On 3/26/24 11:10 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/26/2024 9:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/26/24 11:33 AM, olcott wrote:

On 3/26/2024 6:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/25/24 11:29 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/25/2024 10:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/25/24 10:53 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/25/2024 9:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/25/24 9:35 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/25/2024 8:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/25/24 9:12 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/25/2024 7:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/25/24 8:37 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/25/2024 7:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/25/24 8:11 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/25/2024 6:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/25/24 1:33 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/25/2024 11:16 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 25.mrt.2024 om 17:04 schreef olcott:

On 3/25/2024 10:48 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 25.mrt.2024 om 16:17 schreef olcott:

On 3/24/2024 3:51 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 24.mrt.2024 om 05:55 schreef olcott:

Can an abort decider be defined that cannot be fooled by any pathological input?
>
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 }
>
Of all of the elements of the set of H(D,D) where H simulates its
input there are matched pairs of otherwise identical elements that
only differ by whether they abort their simulation or not.
>
The half of these that don't abort are incorrect because all deciders
must halt. This makes the other half correct about the abort/no abort
decision.

>
No. The other, aborting, half is just wrong, because it aborts when it is not needed. So, the half that aborts is wrong and it may be argued that it is better to not abort something that halts on its own and that

>
At least two software engineers with masters degrees in computer science
disagree.

>
Two is not many, considering that with Google for any invalid idea it is easy to find a several people with a master degree supporting it.
>

Exactly what are you software engineering skills?

>
I have been professionally programming since 1986 in several languages. (Non professionally I started programming in 1975). Since about 1990 I programmed in C and since about 2000 in C++.
>
>

I have been a professional C++ software engineer since Y2K.

>
I'm sorry to hear that olcott has been so smart, but now he does not even sees what even a beginner sees.

>
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)

>
Even a beginner sees that, if the H that aborts is chosen, simulated H(D,D) aborts and returns false (unless aborted). So simulated D halts (unless aborted).
>

>
I am estimating that you must be fibbing about your programming skill.
The D simulated by any implementation of H (that aborts or does not
abort its simulation) shown above cannot possibly reach its own line 04
also shown above.
>

>
But that isn't the question.
>

>
*That <is> the abort decision question*

>
But you agreed that a correct abort decider oly NEEDS to abort its simulation if the correct simulation by a pure correct simulator of the input given to H (which doesn't change, so for this case, still calls that original H) will never reach a final state.
>

>

The question is does that machine described by the input Halt when run, or, alternatively, does its correct simulation (not just by H) run forever (and thus needs to be aborted)?
>

>
Since you know that H(D,D) must abort its simulation to prevent its
own infinite execution I don't understand why you would lie about it.

>
But an H that doesn't abort and an H that does abort are looking at different inputs "D", since you agree that the behavior of D changes based on the H that it is using.
>

>
Not at all. Of the infinite set of every possible implementation of
H where H(D,D) simulates its input everyone that chose to abort is
necessarily correct.
>
I don't understand why you persist in lying about this.
>

>
I really want to get on to the next step and see if any input can
fool an abort decider into making the wrong abort decision.

>
But you need to get this step right first.
>

>
Perhaps you already know that you are not up to this challenge?

>
No, it seems that YOU are not up to it, as you can't seem to understand the error that you are making.
>
You keep on lying to yourself about what your requirements are.
>

>
I am not the one that keeps using the strawman deception to change
the subject away from H(D,D) an abort decider for the above D.

>
Neither am I.
>
YOU agreed that the criteria for an abort decider is only CORRECT if a CORRECT simulation of the exact input given to H(D,D) (i.e UTM(D,D) ) does not halt, where D still calls that H(D,D)
>

>
I never agreed to that.

>
Yes you did:

>
*You just admitted to lying abut this* (see below).

>
Nope, see below.
>

>

>
On 3/17/24 6:11 AM, olcott wrote:
 > On 3/17/2024 12:22 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
 >> To me, for H to NEED to abort its simulation, that means that when giving the input to a correct simulator, that simulator will not halt.
 >>
 > Yes that is correct.
 >
>
Since the ONLY definition of a "Correct Simulator" is a simulator that never aborts, you did..
>

>
Because we have been over this hundreds of times you know that I mean
that a correct simulator means that every step that H simulates was
correctly simulated, so why are you lying about this now?
>
Are you trying to run out the clock on my rebuttals?
>

>
And YOU know that when *I* say "Correct Simulation", I mean per the definition of a UTM that exactly duplicates the full behavior of the input machine, and you agreed to ME.
>

>
Then you are admitting that you lied when you claimed that
I believed that.

>
YOU agreed with what *I* said. When I speak, words mean what *I* hold them to beleive.
>

>
Are you really willing to bet your soul on that?

>
As I said, YES, but are you?
>

Seems foolish to me. I never bet what I cannot afford to lose.
Maybe you should ask the leadership of your church about this.

>
But I know I can't lose, because I know of the promise of God and that he has written my name in his Book of Life.
>

>

Or does the fact that you already lost it mean it doesn't matter to you.
>

That is not what scripture says.

>
It does, but you do not understand it.
>
You seem to have reached the point where God has turned you over to your own desires, giving you the taste of eternal hell here, to see if you will repent.
>
If you do, you can claim your soul back, but for now, YOU have given it to the devil.
>

>
So, you now go and show that you will also LIE about the meaning of verses in the Bible.
>
You are going to show that just as you try to misinterprete the works of the great logicitians that have proved things you don't like, you are also going to misinterpete the Bible to try to juistify your own ideas.
>
You are just Proof-Texting and doing Eisogesis on the text, instead of Exegesis to discover the actual meaning.
>

>
Galatians 5:14 NRSV
For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment,
“You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

>
Remember, Galatians was written to a CHURCH of BELIEVERS, who were suffering some persecution. There was a movement to try to push them back to "Old Testament Judiasm", which was a Key part of Paul's discourse. Being Beleivers, talking about the need to love God, wasn't an issue, but pointing out that the ceremonial law and animal sacrifice system was no longer applicable, because it had been fulfilled. The MORAL law, which is the part that derives from the "Second Greatest Commandment"
>
 From Matthew 22:37 Jesus replied: “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
>
Paul can help interprete Jesus, but can not change his meaning.
>

>
Isaiah 45:6
That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from
the west, that there is none beside me. I am the Lord, and
there is none else.
>
When one takes the above two verses 100% literally as if
they were a mathematical specification one gets an entirely
different meaning than everyone else gets.

>
But 100% literal is NOT how you need to take the verses of the Bible.
>

>
I checked the last very with two Hebrew bible scholars and
they both agree that it says nothing besides God actually
exists.

>
So? Interpreting a verse out of context is just a pretext.
>

>
All those lead by the Holy Spirit are on the right path. I
am doing what I can for additional spiritual confirmation.

>
I seriously doubt you are being lead by the HOLY Spirit, as he can not stand to be with a liar.
>
OR someone who blasphemes God by claiming to be comparable.
>
It is likely some other "spirit" guiding you to that lake of fire.
>
>

>

>

>

Thus, YOU AGREED to MY definition, since you agrees with NO qualifications of your statement.
>

>

>
YOU definition is just illogical as it means that the behavior of a machine is determined by the behavior of a machine that is not it.
>

>
Because deciders must always halt every H that never halts has incorrect
halting behavior and every H that halts has correct halting behavior.

>
That isn't what a "Halt Decider" means, and you are just proving you are just STUPID.
>

>
So now you are disagreeing that ALL deciders must always halt?

>
Nope, but Halting isn't enough to make a foo decider a foo decider.
>

Sure I can certainly agree with that.

>
So, the fact that you deciders just Halt, doesn't make the correct Halt Deciders, they are only that if their answer to H(M,d) matchs Halts(M,d) for all M and d, or for this particular case H(D,D) must match Halts(D,D), which is doesn't, so they are not correct halt deciders.
>

>
// A is an abort decider

>
>
>

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)
Line 03: simulated B(B) invokes simulated A(B,B) that simulates B(B)
>
*Simulation invariant*
B correctly simulated by A cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.
>
When-so-ever a simulating abort decider correctly determines in N
steps of correct simulation that the behavior of its input matches
a correct predefined non-halting behavior pattern the abort decider
is always correct to abort the simulation of this input.

>
So, does A have a SPECIFIC set of code that it is running?
>
If not, your whole arguement is just a LIE.
>
If it does, how can it determine what it would do if it doesn't do what it does, that would be something else, not it.
>
And, since you are defining "B" to use what ever A happens to exist at the moment. B isn't a computation or even a program by the normal definition of one.
>
In this case, I would say you are correct to say that THIS problem is "invalid", due to the automagically changing input as you change the decider looking at it.
>
Of course, since the REAL Haltng problem doesn't do that, it is still valid.
>

>

>

You are just playing with words again.
>
To be a Halt Decider, the output needs to match the Halting Function.
>

I will agree that is the common understanding.
The is no preexisting common understanding of a simulating abort
decider because (to the best of my knowledge) no one every thought
of this before.

>
And either it is equivalent, or it isn't. If it isn't, then it says nothing about the Halting Problem.
>

>
It is too disingenuous to say that it say nothing about the halting
problem. It as much as solves a different version of the halting
problem.

>
Which isn't the Halting Problem. Something that isn't the Halting Problem doesn't say much about the actual Halting Problem.
>
Now, if you want to try to actually formally define your differences, and some how show that they are actually minor and insignificant, you might be able to do something, but when you throw out fundamental principles. liek a program is what the program is, you are just lying about what you are doing.
>

>
If the original version is incoherent the same sort of way that Naive
set theory allowed Russell's Paradox then an abort decider corrects
the erroneous halting problem that same way that ZFC corrected Naive
set theory.
>

Since the only rational definition of "Needs to Abort its simulation", is that a correct simulation of the input would not halt, then your "abort deciders" turn out to need to be actually Halt Decider.
>

>
An abort decider <is> a halt decider from its own point of view.
It is not and cannot be a halt decider from any other POV.

>
Only by lying to itself.
>
Since Halt Deciding is a OBJECTIVE criteria, it can't be equivalent, or even very similar to your SUBJECTIVE new criteria, which you can't even properly define, since you keep on with your using of non-algorithmic terms to describe what it is to do.
>

>

The logic of looking at what would happen if H was a different machine ib a way that actually changed the behavior of the input (because you either make the input not a computation, or re-write the input) is ust invalid.
>

>
The whole class of every H(D,D) that simulates its input
is divided into two sub-classes:
(a) H(D,D) that DOES NOT abort its simulation is incorrect
     (ABOUT THIS ABORT DECISION)
     because it would never halt and all deciders must always halt.
>
(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.

>
So, it is a DECIDER, but you haven't proven it is a CORRECT decider about any defined mapping (other than the trivial problem of it maps what it generates).
>

>
I haven't bothered to repeat this again because you far too consistently
deny easily verified facts. By whatever process that you can tell that
every member of (a) is incorrect and every member of (b) is correct is
the same one that H uses.

>
Nope. JUST MORE LIES showing your utter stupidity.
>

>
It took you far too long to acknowledge what you did and I am concerned
for your soul. Getting caught up in childish head games may be quite fun
yet not at the expense of your soul.

>
I am concerned for YOUR soul, but fear you may be too far gone, since you have clearly fallen for the devils lies.
>

>

Your logic ignores that D changes its behavior based on the H that it uses,

>
*I have known this for two years and you have denied this for two years*

>
But if D changes its behavior based on the H it calls, then looking at it with ANY H other than the one that is the one that you claim to give the right answer is just a LIE.
>
And That H does what it DOES, and doesn't "Correctly Simulate" the input to the point that shows that the input is non-halting, and every logic you have shown is based on LYING that the H that you are working with, which is actually a different H than you final H, is somehow "the same" even though it uses a different one.
>
So, your arguement is just filled with LIES.
>

>

so the fact that a D in group a, and thus using a group a H is not halting says nothing about a a in group b,

>
Every element of (a) is incorrect thus making every element of (b)
correct about the abort decision.

>
>
NOPE. JUST MORE LIES.
>
Proving you are totally STUPID.
>

>

and thus using a group b H. It can be shown that all these D are HALTING, and thus there decider does NOT need to abort its simulation, even though it DOES.
>

>
Fred is seeming to understand this now.
On 3/26/2024 6:23 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
 > Maybe there is some progress, now that even olcott uses names.
 > According olcott the whole set of H can be split in set(a) and set(b).
 > All H in set(a) are wrong, therefore all H is set(b) must be correct.
>

>
When-so-ever a simulating abort decider correctly determines in N
steps of correct simulation that the behavior of its input matches
a correct predefined non-halting behavior pattern the abort decider
is always correct to abort the simulation of this input.

>
Except there is no "correct predefined non-halting behavior pattern" that exists in the simulation of this D(D), since that input WILL HALT if the H that it is built on tries to take ANY of the patterns that are reached in the simulation, to abort and return 0.
>
This was proven a couple of YEARS ago, and you ignored it, because it was just an inconvienent truth.
>
Your logic is based on ASSUME SOMETHING TO EXIST, even if you can not prove that it does. That is just UNSOUND logic, showing that you have an UNSOUND logic system.
>

>

To be an Abort Decider, the output needs to match the correct definition of an Abort Decider, namely would the correct simulation of the input halt in a finite number of steps, or does the correct simulation need to be aborted to come to an end,
>

Something like that. Would simulated D stop running on its own without ever having its simulation aborted?

>
Right, but the D MUST be based on the ACTUAL H that you claim gives the right answer. If that does abort, then you MUST give the input to a DIFFERENT simulator, while keeping its pairing to that H.
>

>
Because you continue to lie about H(D,D) needing to abort its simulation
we are not getting to the point where we can see if any input could fool
an abort decider into getting the wrong abort decision answer.
>

>
But I have shown that the H(D,D) that aborts and returns 0, does not need to actually abort its simulation.

>
*I really can't see how that is not simply a lie*
*I really can't see how that is not simply a lie*
*I really can't see how that is not simply a lie*
>
>

>
Yes, you can't, because you lie to yourself about the meaning of the words.
>

>
I simply take key verses 100% literally as if God would always
say 100% exactly what he means and always means exactly 100% of
what he says. I am not aware of anyone else that does this.

>
Which is the DEVIL'S way to read the Bible.
>
Look at his example of Tempting Jesus in the desert. Quoting scriptures out of context, and trying to offer a LITERAL meaning that differed from the actual meaning, that Jesus pointed out by his reply.
>

>
If one does not do this then the bible can be taken in too many
different ways.

>
Nope.
>
YOUR way allows all the variation,
>

>
All of the different denominations having their differing views
proves that (at least) to the extent that they differ they are
incorrect.

>
And the key is to actually STUDY to see what is the REAL truth behind all the variations, and what differences are important, and what are actually insubstantial.
>
When you actually KNOW what the Bible says, and talk to others who also KNOW what the Bible says, you can discuss things with people even from very dofferent backgrounds, and find agreement.
>
You get the big disagreements from people who don't actually know the Bible, but just the "Dogma" of their religious community. These are not really beleivers or possibly not even really "Christians" that Christ will take in the last day.
>

>
It seems to me that all those things that do not pertain to righteousness can be ignored.

 Righteousness is having a Right Relationship to God. Ignoring who he is makes that impossible.
 

>
Things such as this:
Is the Godhead three different beings or one being taking three forms?
>

 But not correctly understanding who he is makes it impossible to have a right relationship to him.
 

Yes, there are details that we do not need to (or in fact can not) understand.
 But God expects us to do all that we have the power to do, then he can do the rest.
 Intentionally neglecting what he says, puts you outside his Grace.