Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

She won' go Warp 7, Cap'n! The batteries are dead!


computers / comp.theory / Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)

Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)

<e4qdnS-e7YZgokr9nZ2dnUU7-WnNnZ2d@giganews.com>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=17218&group=comp.theory#17218

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!news.swapon.de!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!peer03.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2021 09:55:57 -0500
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite
invocation chain)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<savr2l$b1i$1@dont-email.me> <48GdnbWRNeocCU79nZ2dnUU7-TXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sb0f72$hf4$1@dont-email.me> <6POdnUnCSvCzVk79nZ2dnUU7-a3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sb0kra$ert$1@dont-email.me> <kaudnZS1vPJiaE79nZ2dnUU7-QHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<C0_AI.793830$2A5.649020@fx45.iad>
<udKdnabaTsZvOkn9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<OlbBI.605613$J_5.348305@fx46.iad>
<fO6dnQEYd73PmEv9nZ2dnUU7-TmdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<u9oBI.267517$lyv9.157656@fx35.iad>
<eKednajHd_LtuEv9nZ2dnUU7-TvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ALqBI.113709$od.33914@fx15.iad>
<cvednUP16NqYokv9nZ2dnUU7-bHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <HksBI.267$al1.209@fx26.iad>
<BuOdncUXaL2swkv9nZ2dnUU7-W-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6IuBI.115687$431.109356@fx39.iad>
<RKCdnSS4Ifj44Uv9nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hxvBI.20803$9q1.10955@fx09.iad>
<I8WdnT2QqrV5G0v9nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<EZvBI.43029$7Y.22867@fx03.iad>
<yr2dnWJMMpJLBEv9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ZmDBI.855721$nn2.135856@fx48.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2021 09:55:57 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <ZmDBI.855721$nn2.135856@fx48.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <e4qdnS-e7YZgokr9nZ2dnUU7-WnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 200
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-JQbcgFMffYBZZ+y5cw/1updLDPvY5EllwppMKZgwfVHLRnioFTerlSzm+QwIUVfGHZogE1iLdPMRD94!Ctb/YIzl98M+QPZoWSLg2LARTGHcrGjkz4ACL9fKQCJp5AUU1tWQG89ZqlNAHxJpevBSSwkS+gw=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 9941
X-Received-Bytes: 10153
 by: olcott - Sat, 26 Jun 2021 14:55 UTC

On 6/26/2021 5:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/25/21 11:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/25/2021 9:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/25/21 9:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/25/2021 8:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/25/21 9:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/25/2021 7:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/25/21 6:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2021 4:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/21 4:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2021 3:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/21 2:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2021 12:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> WRONG. P is DEFINED based on H. If you Hypothetically create
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a P
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't follow that form, then you are hypothetically creating
>>>>>>>>>>>>> nonsense
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and can't use it to for anything logical.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Of every possible encoding of simulating partial halt decider H
>>>>>>>>>>>> that can
>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly exist  H*, if H* never aborts the simulation of its
>>>>>>>>>>>> input
>>>>>>>>>>>> results in the infinite execution of the invocation of of P(P)
>>>>>>>>>>>> then a
>>>>>>>>>>>> simulating halt decider H that does abort its simulation of this
>>>>>>>>>>>> input
>>>>>>>>>>>> does correctly decide that this input does specify the never
>>>>>>>>>>>> halting
>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of an infinite chain of invocations.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, if H* is an element of the set of non-aborting deciders
>>>>>>>>>>> (Hn), P
>>>>>>>>>>> will result in infinite recursion,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Which logically entails beyond all possible doubt that the set of
>>>>>>>>>> encodings of simulating partial halt deciders H2* that do abort
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> simulation of the (P,P) input would correctly report that this
>>>>>>>>>> input
>>>>>>>>>> never halts.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> WHY?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Axiom(1) Every computation that never halts unless its simulation is
>>>>>>>> aborted is a computation that never halts. This verified as true on
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> basis of the meaning of its words.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> WRONG.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your test does not match the plain meaning of the words, as has been
>>>>>>> explained many times.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Those words may be over your head, yet several others understand that
>>>>>> they are necessarily correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have seen NO ONE agree to your interpretation of it. The plain
>>>>> meaning
>>>>> is that if it can be shown that if the given instance of the simulator
>>>>> simulating a given input doesn't stop its simulation that this
>>>>> simulation will run forevr, then the machine that is being simulated
>>>>> can
>>>>> be corrected decided as non-Halting.
>>>>>
>>>>> An more formal way to say that is if UTM(P,I) is non-halting then it is
>>>>> correct for H(P,I) to return the non-halting result.
>>>>>
>>>>> This actually follows since UTM(P,I) will be non-halting if and only if
>>>>> P(I) is non-halting by the definition of a UTM, so that statement is
>>>>> trivially proven.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your interpretation, where even if a copy of the algorithm of H is
>>>>> included in P and that included copy needs to abort the simulation of
>>>>> the copy of the machine that it was given, can be PROVEN wrong, as even
>>>>> you have shown that P(P) in this case does Halt, thus your claimed
>>>>> correct answer is wrong by the definition of the problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> Only if you define that your answer isn't actually supposed to be the
>>>>> answer to the halting problem can you justify your answer to be
>>>>> correct,
>>>>> but then you proof doesn't achieve the goal you claim.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note, it is easy to show that your interpretation is wrong since even
>>>>>>> you admit that Linz H^, now called P by you will come to its end and
>>>>>>> halt when given it own representation as its input, and thus is BY
>>>>>>> DEFINITION a Halting Computation, Thus the H deciding it didn't
>>>>>>> need to
>>>>>>> abort its execution to get the wrong answer of Non-Halting.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because at least one invocation of the infinite invocation chain
>>>>>> specified by P(P) had to be terminated to prevent the infinite
>>>>>> execution
>>>>>> of this infinite invocation chain it is confirmed beyond all possible
>>>>>> doubt that P(P) specifies an invocation chain.
>>>>>
>>>>> WRONG. Given that we have an H that can answer H(P,P) because it knows
>>>>> at least enough to terminate the pattern you describe, then when we run
>>>>> P(P) then because the H within it also knows to abort this sequence
>>>>> (since it is built on the same algorithm) this P is NOT part of an
>>>>> infinite chain of execution, and thus its H can return its (wrong)
>>>>> answer to it and that P can then Halt.
>>>>
>>>> P(P) specifies in infinite invocation sequence that is terminated on its
>>>> third invocation of H(P,P).
>>>>
>>>> P(P) specifies in infinite invocation sequence that is terminated on its
>>>> third invocation of H(P,P).
>>>>
>>>> P(P) specifies in infinite invocation sequence that is terminated on its
>>>> third invocation of H(P,P).
>>>>
>>>> P(P) specifies in infinite invocation sequence that is terminated on its
>>>> third invocation of H(P,P).
>>>>
>>>> P(P) specifies in infinite invocation sequence that is terminated on its
>>>> third invocation of H(P,P).
>>>>
>>>> Now I have told this this several hundred times.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> WRONG.
>>>
>>> P(P) starts.
>>>
>>> Calls H(P,P)
>>>
>>> H starts the simulation.
>>>
>>> H simulates P starting
>>>
>>> H simulates P calling H
>>>
>>> H simulates H starting its simulation
>>>
>>> H simulates H simulating P starting
>>>
>>> H simulates H simulating P calling H
>>>
>>> The first H about here detects what it THINKS is an infinite execution
>>>
>>> THe first H aborts its simulation
>>>
>>> The first H returns its answer (Non-Halting) to its caller
>>>
>>> P then Halts
>>>
>>> Showing P is a Halting Computation.
>>
>> As you already admitted P ONLY halts because some H aborts some P
>> otherwise P never ever halts.
>>
>> As you already admitted P ONLY halts because some H aborts some P
>> otherwise P never ever halts.
>>
>> As you already admitted P ONLY halts because some H aborts some P
>> otherwise P never ever halts.
>>
>> As you already admitted P ONLY halts because some H aborts some P
>> otherwise P never ever halts.
>>
>> As you already admitted P ONLY halts because some H aborts some P
>> otherwise P never ever halts.
>>
>
> Yes, P halts because the H it contains terminated the simulation of
> another copy of its description.
>
> YOUR problem is that you think that actually means something, it doesn't
>

Whenever one invocation of the infinite invocation chain of infinite
recursion is aborted the whole chain terminates.

The third invocation of the infinitely recursive invocation chain
specified by P(P) is terminated. The rest of the chain terminates.
This is how infinite recursion works.

That you continue to believe that a function called in infinite
recursion must return a value to its caller proves that you do not have
a clue about these things.

Both Malcolm and Kaz know enough software engineering to know that
no function called in infinite recursion ever returns any value
to its caller. André probably knows this much, Mike knows this much.
Jeff may not know this much.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

SubjectRepliesAuthor
o What if a cat barks?

By: olcott on Mon, 21 Jun 2021

198olcott
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.81
clearnet tor