Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten

Liste des GroupesRevenir à s logic 
Sujet : Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theory sci.logic
Date : 14. Jun 2024, 21:18:54
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v4i52u$30usa$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
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 6/14/2024 2:00 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 14.jun.2024 om 14:49 schreef olcott:
I ran the actual code to verify the facts.
HH1(DD,DD) does not have a pathological relationship to its input
thus this input terminates normally.
 Your terminology is confusing. What you call a "pathological relationship" is that H must simulate itself.
 
*CONVENTIONAL TERMINOLOGY*
For any program H that might determine whether programs halt, a
"pathological" program D, called with some input, can pass its own
source and its input to H and then specifically do the opposite of what
H predicts D will do. No H can exist that handles this case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem

>
HH(DD,DD) does have a pathological relationship to its input
thus this input CANNOT POSSIBLY terminate normally.
 Yes, indeed! Well done! The input of HH(DD,DD) is aborted too early,
If the input is never aborted THEN IT NEVER TERMINATES.
your coding skills must not be very good.

because HH cannot possibly simulate itself up to its final state. That means that its simulation cannot terminate normally.
 
*It is D that calls H in recursive simulation*

>
It is only that H simulated by itself is aborted too early. Is that so difficult to understand for you?
>
Aborted too early is false.
Unless HH(DD,DD) aborts pretty soon HH and DD crash due to
out-of-memory error.
>
If H waits for some other H to abort their
simulation then H waits forever.
>
There is no other H.
>
Clearly you hardly understand anything that I have been saying.
(a) HH(DD,DD) directly executed in main simulates its input.
(b) The simulated DD calls a simulated HH(DD,DD) that
(c) simulates another instance of DD... goto (b)
I understand that very well, a, b, c explain why HH is not able to simulate itself up to the end. You are proving my claims.
 Another way of saying the same thing is:
1) HH starts simulating DD
Until H sees that D correctly simulated by H cannot
possibly terminate normally.
--
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
8 Jun 24 * Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)61olcott
8 Jun 24 +* Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)2olcott
8 Jun 24 i`- Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)1Richard Damon
8 Jun 24 +- Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)1Richard Damon
9 Jun 24 `* Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)57Fred. Zwarts
9 Jun 24  +* Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)2olcott
9 Jun 24  i`- Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)1Richard Damon
9 Jun 24  +* Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)2olcott
9 Jun 24  i`- Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)1Richard Damon
10 Jun 24  `* Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)52olcott
10 Jun 24   +* Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)48Fred. Zwarts
10 Jun 24   i+* Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)3olcott
10 Jun 24   ii+- Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)1Fred. Zwarts
12 Jun 24   ii`- Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)1Richard Damon
10 Jun 24   i`* Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD)44olcott
10 Jun 24   i +* Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD)42Fred. Zwarts
10 Jun 24   i i`* Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD)41olcott
11 Jun 24   i i `* Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD)40Fred. Zwarts
11 Jun 24   i i  `* D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten39olcott
12 Jun 24   i i   `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten38Fred. Zwarts
12 Jun 24   i i    `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten37olcott
12 Jun 24   i i     `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten36Fred. Zwarts
12 Jun 24   i i      `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten35olcott
12 Jun 24   i i       `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten34Fred. Zwarts
12 Jun 24   i i        `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten33olcott
12 Jun 24   i i         `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten32Fred. Zwarts
12 Jun 24   i i          `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten31olcott
13 Jun 24   i i           `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten30Fred. Zwarts
13 Jun 24   i i            `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten29olcott
13 Jun 24   i i             `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten28Fred. Zwarts
13 Jun 24   i i              `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten27olcott
14 Jun 24   i i               `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten26Fred. Zwarts
14 Jun 24   i i                `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten25olcott
14 Jun 24   i i                 `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten24Fred. Zwarts
14 Jun 24   i i                  `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten23olcott
14 Jun 24   i i                   `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten22Fred. Zwarts
14 Jun 24   i i                    `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten21olcott
15 Jun 24   i i                     `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten20Fred. Zwarts
15 Jun 24   i i                      `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten19olcott
15 Jun 24   i i                       +- Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten1Richard Damon
15 Jun 24   i i                       `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten17Fred. Zwarts
15 Jun 24   i i                        `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten16olcott
15 Jun 24   i i                         +- Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten1Richard Damon
15 Jun 24   i i                         `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten14Fred. Zwarts
15 Jun 24   i i                          `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten13olcott
15 Jun 24   i i                           +- Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten1Richard Damon
15 Jun 24   i i                           `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten11Fred. Zwarts
15 Jun 24   i i                            `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten10olcott
15 Jun 24   i i                             +- Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten1Richard Damon
16 Jun 24   i i                             `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten8Fred. Zwarts
16 Jun 24   i i                              `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten7olcott
16 Jun 24   i i                               +- Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten1Richard Damon
16 Jun 24   i i                               `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten5Fred. Zwarts
17 Jun 24   i i                                `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten4olcott
17 Jun 24   i i                                 `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten3Fred. Zwarts
17 Jun 24   i i                                  `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten2olcott
17 Jun 24   i i                                   `- Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten1Fred. Zwarts
12 Jun 24   i `- Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD)1Richard Damon
10 Jun 24   `* Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)3Richard Damon
10 Jun 24    `* Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)2olcott
11 Jun 24     `- Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)1Richard Damon

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal