Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally?

On 4/29/2024 6:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 4/29/24 10:43 AM, olcott wrote:

On 4/29/2024 6:24 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 4/28/24 11:58 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/28/2024 6:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 4/28/24 3:51 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/28/2024 2:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 4/28/24 3:35 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/28/2024 2:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 4/28/24 2:58 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/28/2024 1:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 4/28/24 2:19 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/28/2024 1:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 4/28/24 1:50 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/28/2024 11:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 4/28/24 11:33 AM, olcott wrote:

On 4/28/2024 10:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 4/28/24 9:52 AM, olcott wrote:

On 4/28/2024 8:19 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 4/28/24 8:56 AM, olcott wrote:

On 4/28/2024 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-04-28 00:17:48 +0000, olcott said:
>

Can D simulated by H terminate normally?

>
One should not that "D simulated by H" is not the same as
"simulation of D by H". The message below seems to be more
about the latter than the former. In any case, it is more
about the properties of H than about the properties of D.
>

>
D specifies what is essentially infinite recursion to H.
Several people agreed that D simulated by H cannot possibly
reach past its own line 03 no matter what H does.

>
Nope, it is only that if H fails to be a decider.
>

>
*We don't make this leap of logic. I never used the term decider*
*We don't make this leap of logic. I never used the term decider*
*We don't make this leap of logic. I never used the term decider*
*We don't make this leap of logic. I never used the term decider*

>
>
You admit that people see that as being a claim about the Halting Problem, and thus the implied definitons of the terms apply.
>

>
The only way to get people to understand that I am correct
and thus not always ignore my words and leap to the conclusion
that I must be wrong is to insist that they review every single
detail of all of my reasoning one tiny step at a time.
>
>

>
No, the way to get people to understand what you are saying is to use the standard terminology, and start with what people will accept and move to what is harder to understand.
>
People have no obligation to work in the direction you want them to.
>
Yes, when you speak non-sense, people will ignore you, because what you speak is non-sense.
>
You are just proving that you don't understand how to perform logic, or frame a persuasive arguement.
>
That fact that as far as we can tell, your "logic" is based on you making up things and trying to form justifications for them, just makes people unwilling to attempt to "accept" your wild ideas to see what might make sense.
>

>
Linguistic determinism is the concept that language and its structures
limit and determine human knowledge or thought, as well as thought
processes such as categorization, memory, and perception.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_determinism

>
So? Since formal logic isn't based on Linguistics, it doesn't directly impact it. IT might limit the forms we
>

>
Some of the technical "terms of the art" box people into misconceptions
for which there is no escape. Some of the technical "terms of the art"
I perfectly agree with.
>
*Important technical "term of the art" that I totally agree with*
Computable functions are the formalized analogue of the intuitive notion
of algorithms, in the sense that a function is computable if there
exists an algorithm that can do the job of the function, i.e. given an
input of the function domain it can return the corresponding output. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function

>
But you seem to miss that Halting isn't a "Computable Function", as Turing Proved.
>

>
Even the term "halting" is problematic.
For 15 years I thought it means stops running for any reason.

>
And that shows your STUPIDITY, not an error in the Theory.
>

Now I know that it means reaches the final state. Half the
people here may not know that.

>
No, I suspect most of the people here are smarter than that.
>

>
What Turing proved or did not prove requires carefully
examining every tiny step and not simply leaping to the
conclusion that Turing was right therefore I am wrong.

>
Turing PROVED he was right with a rigorous proof that has been examined by many people and no errors found.
>
You just admitted that you have been working under wrong definitions, and have no grounds to claim you understand all (or any) of what you talk about.
>
Yet, you have the gaul to claim that you must be right and everyone else is wrong, just after admitting that you have been wrong for most of the time.
>

>

>

You claim you want to work in a manner to save time, but then seem to explicitly go on a tack that will force you to waste time by needing to return to your prior points when you change the definition and prove them again.
>

>
I am only interested in an actual honest dialogue. Because of this I
must insist that any dialogue must go through every single detail of
my reasoning one tiny nuance of a point at time.

>
So, why do you insist that people must do it YOUR way.
>

>
I insist that people go over every single detail of my reasoning
instead of saying "no matter what you say Turing was right therefore
you are wrong".

>
But since your "reasoning" begins by making dodgy assumptions, people are going to reject that from the start. And then you insist that people start by accepting your dodgy assumptions, with a promise to prove them later. START by proving them, and maybe people will look at your work.
>
So far, everything that I have seen you present has been based on the idea that "Turing is wrong and I am right, and I ask you to trust me on by dodgy assumptions".
>
Since previously you point blanks said that H, as a Halt Decider was "Correct" as a Halt Decider to return non-halting for H(D,D) even though D(D) halted, and the DEFINITION of H(D,D) was to ask about the behavior of D(D), but "for reasons" the wrong answer was correct because D(D) doesn't always behave the same way when that is counter to the fundamental definitions of Computation Theory.
>
It then came out that the reason was that H never was the required computation (since it depended on a hidden input) so you whole proposal was just a lie.
>

>

That is the OPPOSITE of "Honest Dialog"
>

>
I have spent 20 years doing this and found that this is the only
possible way to get people to actually validate my actual reasoning
and not simply ignore my words and leap to the conclusion that I
must be wrong.
>

>
Nope, perhaps you learned that you can get sidetracked, but it is not the only way.
>
I think your biggest problem that keeps you from getting to where you want to get to is not knowing anything about the fields you try to talk about.
>

We can go around and around about this until one of us gets
bored, yet I absolutely will not progress to any other points
until we have mutual agreement on the current point:
>
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 }
>
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.
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
>
(a) It is a verified fact that D(D) simulated by H cannot
possibly reach past line 03 of D(D) simulated by H whether H
aborts its simulation or not.

>
>
And, until you actually DEFINE the terms I have asked about, we can go no farther. I can not "agree" to something that has poorly defined words in it.

>
The above is 100% complete with no other terminology needed.

>
Nope.
>
Unless you accept that it is true because it is trivially true, that H is "correct" to say its simulation of the input didn't finish because H aborted it simulation, and an aborted simulation of course never reaches the end.
>
And thus, ANY such Simulation Termination analyzer would be correct to decide that ALL inputs were needing to be terminated because that is what it did.
>

>

>
For instance, how can "whether or not H aborts its simulation" have any meaning for what you have defined H to be, since H is a single program, and that will always do what it is programmed to do.
>

>
The above is clearly not any single program.
The above is a C version of the Linz template.

>
Nope.
>
Linz template has D using a COPY of H,

>
I say that X is like Y in one exact way and you say no X
is not like Y in every possible way.
>
My H/D <is> a program template in that it simultaneously refers to
an infinite set of every possible H that simulates D.
>

>
So, you admit that D is NOT a C version of the Linz input, as Linz's H^ was an actual Program based on the decider H.
>

>
My H (above) is exactly the same as the Linz H in that it specifies
an infinite set of implementations of H.

>
Nope, Linz's H is a SINGLE machine, chosen out of that infinite set.

I say that MY H is just like the Linz H in that they both
have Y you say no you are wrong they do not both have X.
>

>
No, you say your H has property Y that Linz's H does not Have.
>

>
My H has many properties the Linz H has many properties.
One of them that they share in common is that:
*they are templates specifying an infinite set of implementations*
*they are templates specifying an infinite set of implementations*
*they are templates specifying an infinite set of implementations*

>
Nope. You just don't understand the proof then.
>
H does NOT specify a templates of an infinite set of posibilities, but a specific machine out of that infinite set.
>
We know this because H is DEFINED to be a TURING MACHINE, and an actual TURING MACHINE can not be a TEMPLATE.
>

>
Also an actual Turing machine must specify all of it steps
one cannot correctly say and the magic occurs here: ⊢*
and have an actual Turing Machine.
>

 Right, the ACTUAL Turing Machine will have a specific path. The specification that limits what machines could meet the requirements to be this H allow it to use any combination of states that get there.
 Remember, Linz isn't fully specifing exactly how H will get to its answer, but is providing a structure that defines the set of machines that we can choose a particular machine from.
 The SPECIFIACTION defines an infinte set of machines.
 

OK so we are perfect agreement on this.
Thus Linz H/Ĥ is isomorphic to My H/D in that they
both specify an infinite set of implementations.

H is a SPECIFIC machine from that set.
 

Yes, we can have a template for a Turing Machine, and ^ is one, that is used to build the specific Turing Machine H^ from the SPECIFIEC TURING MACHINE H.
>

>

The Linz H is exactly a single specific machine.
>

>
If you think that then it is your understanding that is lacking.
Original Linz Turing Machine H
H.q0  ⟨M⟩ w ⊢* H.qy  // M applied to w halts
H.q0  ⟨M⟩ w ⊢* Hqn   // M applied to w does not halt

>
Right, it is a SINGLE SPECIFIC MACHINE THAT IMPLEMENTS THAT REQUIREMENT
>

>
⊢* indicates "an arbitrary number of moves"
An infinite set of possible implementations.

>
Right, H can be chosen out of an infinte set of possibilities, but in the body of the proof, it is a single specific machine,
>

>
Ben could probably correct you on this, my second choice
would be Mike.

>
Trying to appeal to an authority that hasn't given the statement you want them to make isn't valid logic.
>

>
That you do not understand what ⊢* means cannot be corrected
any other way. * is the wildcard from regular expressions
and ⊢ means state transition.
>
Thus ⊢* means zero or more arbitrary state transitions.

  Right, the specification template allows H to use any path it wants.
 The ACTUAL H, will have a specific path.
 You don't seem to understand the concept of Specifcations/Requirements as distinct from individual machines.
 

>

>

Your H is, as you just said, specifying an (UNDEFINED) infinite set of machines.
>
A single machine is not an infinte set.
>
Thus, you are shown to be a LIAR.

I never lie because I expect it could cost my soul.
>

>
Then it is too late, as you have lived your life lying,
>

What you construe as lies on my part are actually errors on your part.
>

  Nope. It might be that you lies are based on your ignorance, but you have been corrected on them enough, without even attempting to learn, that it has move from possibly being an honest mistake to a being a blantent disreguard for the truth.

No I am pretty sure that it is always all you misinterpretation.
We can talk it ALL THE WAY THROUGH and see if it is my mistake or yours.
A simulating termination analyzer is a brand new thing that I created
thus I get to define how it works. I can also explain how this makes
sense. I can prove every detail of my work now, yet it must be step by
step.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer