• Re: The HP is merely a self-contradictory question

    From Mikko@21:1/5 to immibis on Sat Jan 13 10:25:55 2024
    On 2024-01-02 18:09:23 +0000, immibis said:

    On 1/2/24 19:08, olcott wrote:
    On 1/2/2024 9:33 AM, immibis wrote:

    H is an incorrect simulator because it assumes that H does not halt
    although H halts.
    D has a verifiably different execution trace for H(D,D)
    than it has for H1(D,D).


    This sentence violates linguistics. There is no such thing as "an
    execution trade for D for H(D,D)" and "an execution trade for D for
    H1(D,D)"

    Obviously the intended meaning is that the trace of simulated execution
    is different depending on whether simulation is done by H or H1. That
    simly means that at least one of them simulates incorrectly.

    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mike Terry@21:1/5 to Mikko on Sat Jan 13 18:50:57 2024
    On 13/01/2024 08:25, Mikko wrote:
    On 2024-01-02 18:09:23 +0000, immibis said:

    On 1/2/24 19:08, olcott wrote:
    On 1/2/2024 9:33 AM, immibis wrote:

    H is an incorrect simulator because it assumes that H does not halt although H halts.
    D has a verifiably different execution trace for H(D,D)
    than it has for H1(D,D).


    This sentence violates linguistics. There is no such thing as "an execution trade for D for
    H(D,D)" and "an execution trade for D for H1(D,D)"

    Obviously the intended meaning is that the trace of simulated execution
    is different depending on whether simulation is done by H or H1. That
    simly means that at least one of them simulates incorrectly.

    ..or that the simulations are exactly the same AS FAR AS THEY GO, but one or other of H/H1 stops
    simulating earlier than the other.. [This is what actually happens, but I'm not convinced PO
    understands this.]

    Mike.



    Mikko


    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Sat Jan 13 15:41:46 2024
    On 1/13/24 2:25 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 1/13/2024 12:50 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
    On 13/01/2024 08:25, Mikko wrote:
    On 2024-01-02 18:09:23 +0000, immibis said:

    On 1/2/24 19:08, olcott wrote:
    On 1/2/2024 9:33 AM, immibis wrote:

    H is an incorrect simulator because it assumes that H does not
    halt although H halts.
    D has a verifiably different execution trace for H(D,D)
    than it has for H1(D,D).


    This sentence violates linguistics. There is no such thing as "an
    execution trade for D for H(D,D)" and "an execution trade for D for
    H1(D,D)"

    Obviously the intended meaning is that the trace of simulated execution
    is different depending on whether simulation is done by H or H1. That
    simly means that at least one of them simulates incorrectly.

    ..or that the simulations are exactly the same AS FAR AS THEY GO, but
    one or other of H/H1 stops simulating earlier than the other..   [This
    is what actually happens, but I'm not convinced PO understands this.]

    Mike.


    01 int D(ptr x)  // 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 }

    *Execution Trace*
    Line 11: main() invokes H(D,D);

    *keeps repeating* (unless aborted)
    Line 03: simulated D(D) invokes simulated H(D,D) that simulates D(D)

    *Simulation invariant*
    D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.


    You are smart enough to understand that
    *D correctly simulated by H* cannot possibly reach
    its own line 06 and terminate normally.

    You keep using the strawman deception to refer to
    a different computation than *D correctly simulated by H*



    Your own admission of YOU using the strawman deception, as the you claim
    H is supposed to be a Halting Decider, and a Halting Decider is supposed
    to answer about if the Direct Exectu9ion of its input will Halt.

    Yes, this can be converted to a CORRECT SIMULATION, only by the meaning
    of a UTM (and thus if by H, you are stipulating that H is also a UTM as
    well as a decider), and thus the ONLY H in your universe that meets the requirements will simulate forever an not return an answer.

    THEREFORE, no H that gives an answer can have meet your requirements, so
    H just fails to be a correct decider.

    The phrase "unless aborted" is just invalid.

    H needs to determine the behavior of the actual machine it has been
    given, not some other.

    The fact you do that just make you, in your own words, a despicable liar.

    That you for your admission.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)