• Understanding how simulating halt deciders defeat the halting theorem

    From olcott@21:1/5 to All on Mon Feb 13 15:32:45 2023
    XPost: comp.theory, comp.software-eng, sci.logic

    void E(int (*x)())
    {
    HH(x, x);
    return;
    }

    int main()
    {
    HH(E,E);
    }

    HH only needs to simulate E until HH correctly detects that E has a
    repeating state such that E correctly simulated by HH cannot possibly
    reach its own final state and terminate normally in any finite number of
    steps.

    Because it is an easily verified fact that
    E correctly simulated by HH
    cannot possibly halt (reach its own "return" instruction and terminate normally)

    HH is necessarily correct to abort its simulation of E and reject
    E correctly simulated by HH

    as non-halting as soon as it detects the repeating state in
    E correctly simulated by HH

    The repeating state that we and HH can both see is that
    E correctly simulated by HH
    would continue to call HH(E,E) in recursive simulation

    Making it impossible for
    E correctly simulated by H
    to reach its own "return" instruction and terminate normally (AKA halt).

    straw man
    An intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is
    easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument. https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/straw_man

    What deceptive people are doing when they change the subject away from
    E correctly simulated by H to form a rebuttal.

    Simulating Halt Decider Applied to the Halting Theorem https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364657019_Simulating_Halt_Decider_Applied_to_the_Halting_Theorem



    --
    Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
    hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Mon Feb 13 18:57:45 2023
    XPost: comp.theory, comp.software-eng, sci.logic

    On 2/13/23 4:32 PM, olcott wrote:
    void E(int (*x)())
    {
      HH(x, x);
      return;
    }

    int main()
    {
      HH(E,E);
    }

    HH only needs to simulate E until HH correctly detects that E has a
    repeating state such that E correctly simulated by HH cannot possibly
    reach its own final state and terminate normally in any finite number of steps.

    Because it is an easily verified fact that
    E correctly simulated by HH
    cannot possibly halt (reach its own "return" instruction and terminate normally)

    HH is necessarily correct to abort its simulation of E and reject
    E correctly simulated by HH

    as non-halting as soon as it detects the repeating state in
    E correctly simulated by HH

    The repeating state that we and HH can both see is that
    E correctly simulated by HH
    would continue to call HH(E,E) in recursive simulation

    Making it impossible for
    E correctly simulated by H
    to reach its own "return" instruction and terminate normally (AKA halt).

    straw man
    An intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument. https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/straw_man

    What deceptive people are doing when they change the subject away from
    E correctly simulated by H to form a rebuttal.

    Simulating Halt Decider Applied to the Halting Theorem https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364657019_Simulating_Halt_Decider_Applied_to_the_Halting_Theorem




    Nope.

    I replied to you ranting, you have ignored my statements because you
    have NO answer to it, so you are admitting you are a failure and are
    using flawed logic.

    YOU ARE ADMITTING FAILURE BY NOT RESPONDING TO THE REBUTAL.

    You are just proving that you are a ignorant pathological lying idiot.

    Your arguement is base on simple lies that are based on assuming the
    impossible happens.

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