Re: Can any pathological input thwart a simulating abort decider?

On 3/22/2024 2:16 PM, wij wrote:

On Fri, 2024-03-22 at 14:10 -0500, olcott wrote:

On 3/22/2024 1:58 PM, wij wrote:

On Fri, 2024-03-22 at 13:41 -0500, olcott wrote:

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 }
 
H is a simulating abort decider that supposed to
correctly determine whether or not it needs to abort
the simulation of any pathological inputs that are
attempting to thwart this abort decision.
 
H must abort every simulated input that would not
otherwise halt to prevent its own non-termination.
 
It is a self-evident verified fact that every H(D,D)
that decides to abort its simulated D(D) is correct
in doing so because this does prevent its own
non-termination.
 

 
In you program listing above (1) H can only return 0, it does not determine anything.

 
I never mentioned any return value and return values are out-of-scope
for this post.
 
In this post we are only looking for a counter-example that can thwart
simulating abort decider H.
 
It is a self-evidently correct verified fact that every implementation
of H(D,D) that aborts its simulation to prevent its otherwise non-
termination is correct in doing so.
 

(2) and, H is empty, there is no code to determine "pathological input", and who
decide "pathological", you or program?
 

 
It is stipulated that every implementation of H(D,D) simulates
its input D(D).
 

 
Agree what you say here and now.
One thing I care about is that if you insist that POOH solves the halting problem,
there would be many problems.
 

 
No one can understand that until they first understand that
H(D,D) is a correct abort decider.