Sujet : Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--
De : richard (at) *nospam* damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 26. Apr 2024, 18:19:06
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <v0gk5q$2a19r$5@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 4/26/24 11:34 AM, olcott wrote:
On 4/26/2024 3:32 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-04-25 14:15:20 +0000, olcott said:
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 D(D);
12 }
>
That H(D,D) must report on the behavior of its caller is the
one that is incorrect.
>
What H(D,D) must report is independet of what procedure (if any)
calls it.
>
Thus when H(D,D) correctly reports that its input D(D) cannot possibly
reach its own line 6 and halt no matter what H does then H can abort its
input and report that its input D(D) does not halt.
But since the program D(D) DOES reach its own line 6 when run, because H aborts its simulation and return 0 (since that is what you say this H will do), your statement is PROVEN TO BE A LIE, and you "logic" just a collection of contradictions.
The fact that the D(D) executed in main does halt is none of H's
business because H is not allowed to report on the behavior of its
caller.
In other words, H doesn't need to report on the Behavior of the Program described by its input because it isn't actually a Halt Decider, because you are just a LIAR.