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

On 3/25/2024 10:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/25/24 10:57 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/25/2024 9:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/25/24 10:19 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/25/2024 9:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/25/24 9:28 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/25/2024 7:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/25/24 8:44 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/25/2024 7:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/25/24 8:22 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/25/2024 6:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/25/24 2:07 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/23/2024 5:19 PM, immibis wrote:

On 23/03/24 20:26, olcott wrote:

On 3/23/2024 1:57 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 23.mrt.2024 om 17:53 schreef olcott:

On 3/23/2024 11:31 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 23.mrt.2024 om 17:08 schreef olcott:

On 3/23/2024 9:43 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 23.mrt.2024 om 14:58 schreef olcott:

On 3/23/2024 4:38 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 22.mrt.2024 om 19:41 schreef olcott:

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.
>

>
It is self-evident that when H is programmed to abort and return false, then [the simulated] D will

>
immediately stop running never having reached its last instruction to halt.

>
As can be seen above, if H returns false in line 03, then D will go to line 04 and line 06 and halt (unless aborted).
>

>
You still do not understand that functions called in infinite
recursion never return to their caller, thus must have grossly
exaggerated your programming skill.

>
Even a beginner in C will see that if the simulated D, using the H that is programmed to abort and return false, will continue with line 04 then line 06 and halt (unless aborted).
>

>
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 }
>
That is the strawman deception we are only talking about the
fact that the D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach
its own line 06 and halt.

>
Denying a verified fact is not a strong rebuttal.
>

>

When the simulated D calls its simulator this call cannot possibly
return to its caller. The relationship between the simulated D(D)
and its simulator makes a call D(D) to its own simulator isomorphic
to infinite recursion.

>
It is exactly the relation with the simulator that aborts, which makes that also the simulated H is programmed to abort and return false.
Olcott is again contradicting himself.
>

>
That the directly executed D(D) is an entirely different instance
that does not have this same pathological relationship is summed
up in your own reply.

>
I am not talking about a directly executed D, but a simulated D!
I am not talking about a directly executed D, but a simulated D!
I am not talking about a directly executed D, but a simulated D!
>
This simulated D halts (unless aborted)!

>
D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own line
06 and halt. That you say otherwise proves your insufficient
programming skill.
>

It seems too difficult for olcott to see, what even a beginner sees, that H, programmed to return false, also returns false when simulated (unless aborted).

>
When I worked at the US Army Corps of engineers an independent
contractor rated my programs as the best quality of all of the
programs that they reviewed and they reviewed all of the programs.

>
If true, I am very sorry for olcott, that he is no longer able to see, what even a beginner sees, that H, programmed to return false, also returns false when simulated (unless aborted).

>
Everyone with sufficient programming skill can see that this is a
verified fact:
>
*D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own final state*
*at line 06 in an infinite number of steps of correct simulation*
Some of these people might lie about it.
>

>
Everyone with sufficient programming skill can see that H is not defined as part of program D, and if you define H inside program D, then it might be possible to tell whether it reaches line 06 or not.

>
*It is stipulated that H must correctly simulate 1 to ∞ steps of D*
Every other detail about H is unspecified because it is irrelevant.

>
>
Then your stipulation is just ILLOGICAL, as a given H can only do one thing.

>
None-the-less they all share the common property that they either
run forever or abort the simulation of their input. All of the other
differences don't make and damn difference at all.
>

>
But that isn't a simple property, so you are creating a FALSE DICHOTOMY.
>
All the ones that fail to abort

>
Are in the set that fail to abort, [set(a)]
LEAVING ALL OF THE OTHER ONES IN THE SET THAT ABORTS [set(b)]
>
Instead of the deceptive names of the individual members we can
call them set (a) and set (b).

>
Fine, and you have shown that we needed to abort all of the simulations of D built on an H in set (a).
>
That DOESN'T meen that it was correct to abort the simulation of any of the Ds built from an H from set (b).
>

>
By definition every (a) is wrong and every (b) is correct.

>
Then you need tp be "Stipulating" sucn a definition of "Correct" to include proven INCORRECT answwers and admit that you logic is based on lying.
>

>
Try and clearly show how any element of (b) is incorrect
using set theory.

>
Set theory doesn't have the tools to do it.
>
You are just proving your stupidity.
>

>

>

>

>
It is like you are trying to get away with claiming that
some of the living things THAT ARE ANIMALS ARE NOT ANIMALS
by referring to the subset of cats.
>

>
Nope, YOU are the one make claims about things that you can't actually show.
>

>
*Let's try and formalize this more precisely with set theory*
>
X are H/D pairs where H simulates D.
Y are the subset of X where H does not abort its simulation.
Z are the subset of X where H aborts its simulation.
>
All X are Y xor Z
All Y are incorrect
All Z are correct
>

>
>
Why are all Z correct?
>
Remember, D's behavior changes based on what H it is paired with.
>

It does not change in any relevant way.

>
Of course it does.
>
DO you considdr being Non-Halting vs Halting not a "relevent" fact?
>
I guess you REALLY think cats can be 10 story office buildings.
>

Try and show how it changes in a relevant way.

>
D(D) based on an H that never aborts its simulation of this input will be non-halting.
>
D(D) based on an H that DOES abort its simulation simulation of this input, and returns non-halting will be halting.
>

>
I am saying that H/D pairs where H simulates D that this D right here
not some other D somewhere else never reaches its own line 06.

 Right. But that doesn't prove that the D is non-halting of H gives up on its simulation.
 

You always use the strawman deception on this.
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ABORT DECIDERS
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ABORT DECIDERS
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ABORT DECIDERS
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ABORT DECIDERS
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ABORT DECIDERS

If that was all that was needed, ALL inputs could be correctly decided as non-halting.
 

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ABORT DECIDERS
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ABORT DECIDERS
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ABORT DECIDERS
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ABORT DECIDERS
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ABORT DECIDERS

>

Since H is supposed to be a "Halt Decider", the HALTING PROPERTY of the input is a very important and relevent fact.
>
I guess you think TRUTH isn't relevent, only whether you can make a convincing lie.
>

Milk and Cheese and not the same yet both are dairy products.

>
And Milk is a liquid and Cheese is a solid.
>
Try to make a glass og "Chocolate Cheese"
>
Or make a Pizza with "Milk" as a topping.
>

>

There is no reason to assume that ANY X are correct, that is your INCORRECT assumption,
>

>
All H that never halt have incorrect halting behavior for a decider.
All H that halt have correct halting behavior for a decider.

>
That may make them DECIDERS, but not a HALT DECIDER if they say non-halting for an input you have admitted is Halting.
>
You are just PROVING that you are just a pathetic hypocritical ignorant pathological lying idiot.
>

>
Are you willing to bet your soul on that?

 Sure, are YOU?

I know that my soul is the one thing that I cannot afford
to lose, and what the Hell would I do with two souls when I win?
I would not bet my soul that 2 + 3 = 5.

>

>

This has been told to you MANY times, but you just refuse to believe it because you seem to prefer to be a pathetic hypocritical pathologically
>

>

>

>

 

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer