If for any number of N steps that simulating halt decider H simulates
its input (X,Y) X never reaches its final state then we know that X
never halts and H is always correct to abort the simulation of this
input and return 0.
This is the invocation invariant of the input similar to the loop
invariant and recursion invariant of proof of program correctness.
On 2021-12-01 21:07, olcott wrote:
If for any number of N steps that simulating halt decider H simulates
its input (X,Y) X never reaches its final state then we know that X
never halts and H is always correct to abort the simulation of this
input and return 0.
What on earth is N?
If that is simply a variable which can be anything
then you seem to be saying that if for 1 step the simulated input
doesn't halt then it never halts. This means pretty much every
computation whose initial state is not also a final halting state
doesn't halt according to you.
This is the invocation invariant of the input similar to the loop
invariant and recursion invariant of proof of program correctness.
That sentence could probably use some vinaigrette. Or syrup of ipecac.
André
On 02/12/2021 23:54, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/2/21 5:57 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/2/2021 4:45 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2021-12-02 15:15, olcott wrote:
On 12/2/2021 3:52 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2021-12-02 14:44, olcott wrote:
On 12/2/2021 3:25 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2021-12-02 13:29, olcott wrote:
On 12/2/2021 12:09 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2021-12-01 21:07, olcott wrote:
If for any number of N steps that simulating halt decider H >>>>>>>>>>> simulates its input (X,Y) X never reaches its final state >>>>>>>>>>> then we know that X never halts and H is always correct to >>>>>>>>>>> abort the simulation of this input and return 0.
What on earth is N?
any arbitrary element of the set of positive integers
And right below I explain why this leads to a nonsensical
interpretation. Of course, you ignored this.
Because there exists no N in the set of positive integers such
that N steps of the simulation of the input H(X,Y) stops running >>>>>>> we correctly conclude that (this invocation invariant proves) the >>>>>>> input to H(X,Y) never stops running.
So you mean 'every N' rather than 'any N'. But this just amounts
to saying that if X doesn't halt that it is non-halting, so why
bring up N at all?
Because my reviewers seem too dense to comprehend it any other way.
Your "reviewers" can't understand 'every' and insist you use 'any'?
But your decider, if it decides to abort its input, must do so
after some FINITE number of steps, so it cannot actually test for
'every N'.
Do you test every N in mathematical induction? (Of course not you
dumb bunny).
Nowhere does your 'proof' make use of anything even remotely
analogous to mathematical induction.
First, the relevant property P(n) is proven for the base case, which
often corresponds to n = 0 or n = 1. Then we assume that P(n) is
true, and we prove P(n+1). The proof for the base case(s) and the
proof that allows us to go from P(n) to P(n+1) provide a method to
prove the property for any given m >= 0 by successively proving P(0),
P(1), ..., P(m). We can't actually perform the infinity of proves
necessary for all choices of m >= 0, but the recipe that we provided
assures us that such a proof exists for all choices of m.
To reduce the possibility of error, we will structure all our
induction proofs rigidly, always highlighting the following four parts:
The general statement of what we want to prove;
The specification of the set we will perform induction on;
The statement and proof of the base case(s);
And where is the PROOF?
The statement of the induction hypothesis (generally, we will assume
that P(n) holds, but sometimes we need stronger assumptions, see
below), the statement of P(n+1) and proof of the induction step (or
case).
And where is the PROOF?
https://www.cs.cornell.edu/courses/cs312/2004fa/lectures/lecture9.htm
Simulate_Steps(P,P,0) P(P) does not reach its final state.
Simulate_Steps(P,P,N) P(P) does not reach its final state.
Simulate_Steps(P,P,N+1) P(P) does not reach its final state.
∴ the input to H(P,P) never halts.
These are just STATEMENTS, you haven't PROVED anything.
I guess that just shows mow much you LIE.
You call PO a liar quite a lot, but to be a liar PO would need to be deliberately trying to deceive you. Do you think that's the case? Or
is it reasonable to think that PO /believes/ what he said above is a
genuine application of the mathematical principle of induction. [Yes,
PO has no logical /grounds/ for thinking that, since he lacks any understanding of the principle, but the question is about what PO /believes/.]
Personally, I would say PO genuinely doesn't understand that his
arguments are idiotic, due to some psychological/neural problem. I see
his claims and reasoning he puts forward for them more akin to
confabulation, where a patient invents memories and explanations for a
state of affairs they believe to be true, without necessarily having any deceptive intent.
Of course, there are cases where PO repeats claims (like where he
repeats his obviously false claim to have had fully coded TMs a couple
of years ago), even AFTER it is explained that what he is saying does
not correspond to accepted wording of the terms used, and so is simply false. Maybe it's hard to swallow that this might not be direct lying
on PO's part, but even in these situations I suspect his mind/memory/understanding is so "malleable" that /to him/ it really does
seem that he was telling the truth all the time??
I don't really /know/ whether PO is conciously lying in these cases, but
it does seem to me that PO is so thoroughly DELUDED that he could look
at someone holding up 4 fingers and convince himself that, yes there are
4 fingers, but also it is correct that there are 5, or 3, for some
reason! (And genuinely believe that - not just be lying about it...) He
is perhaps the ideal citizen of Oceana! :) Or, perhaps in his heart he knows he is making false claims - not easy to say either way.
Perhaps a bigger point is that it doesn't really matter either way
whether PO is actually lying or confabulating or some third option - I'm
not even sure the distinction is meaningful in PO's case. What he says
is all totally irrelevant, and even if someone "proved" the PO was
"lying" it would make no difference whatsoever to anything...
Mike.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 366 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 17:10:57 |
Calls: | 7,812 |
Files: | 12,927 |
Messages: | 5,766,217 |