Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3

Liste des GroupesRevenir à s logic 
Sujet : Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theory sci.logic
Date : 27. Apr 2024, 16:32:04
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v0j295$dmbi$1@dont-email.me>
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 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 4/27/2024 6:45 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 4/27/24 1:34 AM, olcott wrote:
On 4/26/2024 10:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 4/26/24 11:02 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/26/2024 9:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 4/26/24 9:43 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/26/2024 7:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 4/26/24 8:02 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/26/2024 12:05 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/26/2024 11:19 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
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.
>
>
D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own line 06 thus when we do
not use the strawman deception to refer to a different D then we know
that D simulated by H never halts.
>
>
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.
>
>
>
Anyone knowing the theory of computation knows that H is not allowed to
report on the behavior of its caller.
>
In computability theory and computational complexity theory, an
undecidable problem is a decision problem for which it is proved to be
impossible to construct an algorithm that always leads to a correct yes-
or-no answer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undecidable_problem
>
The behavior of the simulated D(D) before H aborts its simulation is
different than the behavior of the executed D(D) after H has aborted
its simulation.
>
Every time that a simulated input would never stop running unless
aborted the simulating termination analyzer must abort this simulation
to prevent its own infinite execution.
>
H(D,D) is a case of this H1(D,D) is not a case of this even though
the only difference between H and H1 is that D calls H and D does
not call H1.
>
D simulated by H would never stop running unless aborted and cannot
possibly reach its own line 06 and halt no matter what H does.
>
Thus whenever we do not use the strawman deception to refer to a
different D we know that D simulated by H specifies a non-halting
sequence of configurations to H.
>
>
*This might be a more succinct way of summing that up*
When you understand that D simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own line 03 (thus cannot possibly halt) no matter what H does and
>
But since H does whatever H does, if H aborts and returns 0, the the direct execution of D, which is what actually matters, DOES get to that point.
>
>
That is another much less useful way to make a universally correct
termination analyzer:
>
int H(ptr x, ptr y)
{
   printf("The input program does whatever it does!\n");
   return 777; // code for it does what it does
}
>
But that doesn't make H answer the question.
>
I guess you don't understand what I am saying.
>
You said "no matter what H does", but that is a MEANINGLESS statement, because H will do what H is programmed to do, so we don't need to look at other behavior, but just the behavior that H ac
>
>
It can be verified through ordinary software engineering that D(D)
simulated H cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.
>
>
Yes, but that is just a lying RED HERRING, as the question isn't about what H's simulation of the input does, but what the program the input actually represents does when run.
>
YOu are just effectively admitting that you are nothing but a stupid liar that doesn't know what he is talking about.
>
>
It can be verified through computer science that this means that D(D) simulated H by never reaches its own final state and halts whether
H aborts its simulation or not.
>
Which, since this H DOES abort its simulation is trying to introduce a red herring.
>
>
D(D) simulated by H never halts
D(D) simulated by H never halts
D(D) simulated by H never halts
D(D) simulated by H never halts
D(D) simulated by H never halts
>
STRAWMAN
>
A method that I used very effectively on another forum and made much
progress with is utterly insisting that we cannot move on to any
additional point until we have 100% complete mutual agreement on
the current point.
>
(1) If we (possibly falsely assume) that H(D,D) is supposed to report
on the behavior of D(D) simulated by H and
>
(2) we understand that D(D) simulated by H cannot possibly reach past
its own line 3 thus cannot reach its own final state at line 6 and halt
>
then (within this possibly false assumption) (1) and the understanding of (2) it <is> correct for H to abort its simulation and report halting.
>
 Let go to actual DEFINITIONS shall we.
  What do you define the Halting Problem to be?
 
THIS IS A STIPULATED DEFINITION (like a given" in Geometry)
Simulating termination analyzer H determines whether or not D(D)
simulated by H can possibly reach its final state at its own
line 06 and halt whether or not H aborts its simulation.
A stipulative definition is a type of definition in which a new or
currently existing term is given a new specific meaning for the purposes
of argument or discussion in a given context. When the term already
exists, this definition may, but does not necessarily, contradict the
dictionary (lexical) definition of the term.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipulative_definition
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Date Sujet#  Auteur
18 Apr 24 * Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2323olcott
18 Apr 24 +* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2262Richard Damon
18 Apr 24 i`* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2261olcott
19 Apr 24 i `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2260Richard Damon
19 Apr 24 i  `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2259olcott
19 Apr 24 i   `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2258Richard Damon
19 Apr 24 i    +* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V256olcott
19 Apr 24 i    i+* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V25Richard Damon
19 Apr 24 i    ii`* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V24olcott
19 Apr 24 i    ii `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V23Richard Damon
19 Apr 24 i    ii  `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V22olcott
20 Apr 24 i    ii   `- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V21Richard Damon
20 Apr 24 i    i`* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V250Mikko
20 Apr 24 i    i `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--49olcott
20 Apr 24 i    i  +- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--1Richard Damon
21 Apr 24 i    i  `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--47Mikko
21 Apr 24 i    i   `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--46olcott
21 Apr 24 i    i    +- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--1Richard Damon
21 Apr 24 i    i    +- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--1Richard Damon
22 Apr 24 i    i    `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--43Mikko
22 Apr 24 i    i     +* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--10olcott
22 Apr 24 i    i     i+* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--5Mikko
22 Apr 24 i    i     ii`* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--4olcott
23 Apr 24 i    i     ii `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--3Mikko
23 Apr 24 i    i     ii  `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--2olcott
24 Apr 24 i    i     ii   `- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--1Mikko
23 Apr 24 i    i     i`* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--4Richard Damon
23 Apr 24 i    i     i `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--3olcott
24 Apr 24 i    i     i  +- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--1Richard Damon
24 Apr 24 i    i     i  `- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--1Mikko
23 Apr 24 i    i     `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--32olcott
24 Apr 24 i    i      `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--31Mikko
24 Apr 24 i    i       `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--30olcott
25 Apr 24 i    i        `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--29Mikko
25 Apr 24 i    i         `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--28olcott
26 Apr 24 i    i          `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--27Mikko
26 Apr 24 i    i           `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--26olcott
26 Apr 24 i    i            +- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--1Richard Damon
26 Apr 24 i    i            +* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--7Ross Finlayson
26 Apr 24 i    i            i`* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--6olcott
26 Apr 24 i    i            i `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--5Richard Damon
26 Apr 24 i    i            i  `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--4Ross Finlayson
26 Apr 24 i    i            i   `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--3olcott
26 Apr 24 i    i            i    `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--2Richard Damon
26 Apr 24 i    i            i     `- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--1Ross Finlayson
27 Apr 24 i    i            `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--17Mikko
27 Apr 24 i    i             `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--16olcott
28 Apr 24 i    i              `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--15Mikko
28 Apr 24 i    i               `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--14olcott
29 Apr 24 i    i                `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--13Mikko
29 Apr 24 i    i                 `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--12olcott
29 Apr 24 i    i                  `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--11Mikko
29 Apr 24 i    i                   `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--10olcott
30 Apr 24 i    i                    `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--9Mikko
30 Apr 24 i    i                     `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--8olcott
1 May 24 i    i                      `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--7Mikko
1 May 24 i    i                       `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--6olcott
2 May 24 i    i                        `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--5Mikko
2 May 24 i    i                         `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--4olcott
3 May 24 i    i                          `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--3Mikko
3 May 24 i    i                           `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--2olcott
4 May 24 i    i                            `- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--1Mikko
19 Apr 24 i    +* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V22olcott
20 Apr 24 i    i`- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V21Richard Damon
19 Apr 24 i    `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof--199olcott
20 Apr 24 i     +* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof--3Richard Damon
20 Apr 24 i     i`* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof--2olcott
20 Apr 24 i     i `- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof--1Richard Damon
20 Apr 24 i     `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof--195Mikko
20 Apr 24 i      `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof--194olcott
20 Apr 24 i       +* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof--3Richard Damon
21 Apr 24 i       i`* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof--2olcott
21 Apr 24 i       i `- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof--1Richard Damon
21 Apr 24 i       `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof--190Mikko
21 Apr 24 i        `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof--189olcott
22 Apr 24 i         `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof--188Mikko
22 Apr 24 i          `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof--187olcott
22 Apr 24 i           `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof--186Mikko
22 Apr 24 i            +- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof--1olcott
22 Apr 24 i            `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof--184olcott
23 Apr 24 i             `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof--183Mikko
23 Apr 24 i              `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof--182olcott
24 Apr 24 i               `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof--181Mikko
24 Apr 24 i                `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--180olcott
25 Apr 24 i                 +* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--149Richard Damon
25 Apr 24 i                 i`* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--148olcott
25 Apr 24 i                 i +* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--10Richard Damon
25 Apr 24 i                 i i`* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--9olcott
25 Apr 24 i                 i i `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--8Richard Damon
25 Apr 24 i                 i i  `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--7olcott
25 Apr 24 i                 i i   `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--6Richard Damon
25 Apr 24 i                 i i    +* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--2olcott
25 Apr 24 i                 i i    i`- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--1Richard Damon
25 Apr 24 i                 i i    +* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--2olcott
25 Apr 24 i                 i i    i`- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--1Richard Damon
25 Apr 24 i                 i i    `- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--1Ross Finlayson
25 Apr 24 i                 i `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--137Mikko
25 Apr 24 i                 i  `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--136olcott
26 Apr 24 i                 i   +- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--1Richard Damon
26 Apr 24 i                 i   `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--134Mikko
26 Apr 24 i                 i    +* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--26olcott
26 Apr 24 i                 i    `* D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does107olcott
25 Apr 24 i                 `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--30Mikko
18 Apr 24 +* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V254olcott
18 Apr 24 `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V26olcott

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal