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 D(D);
12 }
*Execution Trace*
Line 11: main() invokes D(D);
Line 03: D(D) invokes H(D,D) that simulates 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.
D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach its simulated final
state in 1 to ∞ steps of correct simulation.
*Every computation that only stops running because some steps of this*
*same computation had to be aborted to prevent the infinite execution*
*of this computation is a computation that does not halt*
Because D specifies that it calls H(D,D) in recursive simulation and H
must abort this recursive simulation to prevent the infinite execution
of directly executed D(D) we know that D(D) does not actually halt even though it really looks like it does.
Within the Turing Machine model of computation only UTM simulations can
be aborted, direct executions cannot be aborted.
On 1/27/2024 10:45 AM, immibis wrote:
On 1/27/24 17:06, olcott wrote:
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 D(D);
12 }
*Execution Trace*
Line 11: main() invokes D(D);
Line 03: D(D) invokes H(D,D) that simulates 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.
D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach its simulated final
state in 1 to ∞ steps of correct simulation.
*Every computation that only stops running because some steps of this*
*same computation had to be aborted to prevent the infinite execution*
*of this computation is a computation that does not halt*
Because D specifies that it calls H(D,D) in recursive simulation and H
must abort this recursive simulation to prevent the infinite execution
of directly executed D(D) we know that D(D) does not actually halt even
though it really looks like it does.
Within the Turing Machine model of computation only UTM simulations can
be aborted, direct executions cannot be aborted.
*Dishonest straw man*
You are dishonestly pretending that the directly executed D(D) is
simulated by H.
*Not at all, you merely did not pay close enough attention*
The directly executed D(D) never halts unless the recursive
simulation that it specifies in its call to H(D,D) has been
aborted by H.
On 1/27/24 17:06, olcott wrote:
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 D(D);
12 }
*Execution Trace*
Line 11: main() invokes D(D);
Line 03: D(D) invokes H(D,D) that simulates 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.
D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach its simulated final
state in 1 to ∞ steps of correct simulation.
*Every computation that only stops running because some steps of this*
*same computation had to be aborted to prevent the infinite execution*
*of this computation is a computation that does not halt*
Because D specifies that it calls H(D,D) in recursive simulation and H
must abort this recursive simulation to prevent the infinite execution
of directly executed D(D) we know that D(D) does not actually halt even
though it really looks like it does.
Within the Turing Machine model of computation only UTM simulations can
be aborted, direct executions cannot be aborted.
*Dishonest straw man*
You are dishonestly pretending that the directly executed D(D) is
simulated by H.
If you kill John does it kill his identical twin brother?
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 D(D);
12 }
*Execution Trace*
Line 11: main() invokes D(D);
Line 03: D(D) invokes H(D,D) that simulates 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.
D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach its simulated final
state in 1 to ∞ steps of correct simulation.
*Every computation that only stops running because some steps of this*
*same computation had to be aborted to prevent the infinite execution*
*of this computation is a computation that does not halt*
Because D specifies that it calls H(D,D) in recursive simulation and H
must abort this recursive simulation to prevent the infinite execution
of directly executed D(D) we know that D(D) does not actually halt even though it really looks like it does.
Within the Turing Machine model of computation only UTM simulations can
be aborted, direct executions cannot be aborted.
On 1/27/2024 10:50 AM, olcott wrote:
The directly executed D(D) never *stops running* unless the
recursive simulation that it specifies in its call to H(D,D)
has been aborted by H.
On 1/27/2024 12:08 PM, immibis wrote:
On 1/27/24 17:52, olcott wrote:
On 1/27/2024 10:50 AM, olcott wrote:
The directly executed D(D) never *stops running* unless the
recursive simulation that it specifies in its call to H(D,D)
has been aborted by H.
That's a different computation
*D specifies that it calls H(D,D) in recursive simulation*
A thing is not different than itself.
On 1/27/2024 1:19 PM, immibis wrote:
On 1/27/24 20:10, olcott wrote:
On 1/27/2024 12:08 PM, immibis wrote:A simulation is different than a direct execution.
On 1/27/24 17:52, olcott wrote:
On 1/27/2024 10:50 AM, olcott wrote:
The directly executed D(D) never *stops running* unless the
recursive simulation that it specifies in its call to H(D,D)
has been aborted by H.
That's a different computation
*D specifies that it calls H(D,D) in recursive simulation*
A thing is not different than itself.
*The direct execution of D(D) specifies*
*that it calls H(D,D) in recursive simulation*
*The direct execution of D(D) specifies*
*that it calls H(D,D) in recursive simulation*
*The direct execution of D(D) specifies*
*that it calls H(D,D) in recursive simulation*
On 1/27/2024 2:44 PM, immibis wrote:
On 1/27/24 20:21, olcott wrote:
On 1/27/2024 1:19 PM, immibis wrote:That a simulation does not halt if it is not aborted only proves that
On 1/27/24 20:10, olcott wrote:
On 1/27/2024 12:08 PM, immibis wrote:A simulation is different than a direct execution.
On 1/27/24 17:52, olcott wrote:
On 1/27/2024 10:50 AM, olcott wrote:
The directly executed D(D) never *stops running* unless the
recursive simulation that it specifies in its call to H(D,D)
has been aborted by H.
That's a different computation
*D specifies that it calls H(D,D) in recursive simulation*
A thing is not different than itself.
*The direct execution of D(D) specifies*
*that it calls H(D,D) in recursive simulation*
*The direct execution of D(D) specifies*
*that it calls H(D,D) in recursive simulation*
*The direct execution of D(D) specifies*
*that it calls H(D,D) in recursive simulation*
the simulation does not halt.
*It proves that behavior specified by the input DOES NOT HALT*
*It proves that behavior specified by the input DOES NOT HALT*
*It proves that behavior specified by the input DOES NOT HALT*
On 1/27/2024 4:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/27/24 4:31 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/27/2024 2:44 PM, immibis wrote:
On 1/27/24 20:21, olcott wrote:
On 1/27/2024 1:19 PM, immibis wrote:That a simulation does not halt if it is not aborted only proves
On 1/27/24 20:10, olcott wrote:
On 1/27/2024 12:08 PM, immibis wrote:A simulation is different than a direct execution.
On 1/27/24 17:52, olcott wrote:
On 1/27/2024 10:50 AM, olcott wrote:
The directly executed D(D) never *stops running* unless the
recursive simulation that it specifies in its call to H(D,D) >>>>>>>>> has been aborted by H.
That's a different computation
*D specifies that it calls H(D,D) in recursive simulation*
A thing is not different than itself.
*The direct execution of D(D) specifies*
*that it calls H(D,D) in recursive simulation*
*The direct execution of D(D) specifies*
*that it calls H(D,D) in recursive simulation*
*The direct execution of D(D) specifies*
*that it calls H(D,D) in recursive simulation*
that the simulation does not halt.
*It proves that behavior specified by the input DOES NOT HALT*
*It proves that behavior specified by the input DOES NOT HALT*
*It proves that behavior specified by the input DOES NOT HALT*
NOPE. Not by the REAL definition.
Halt deciders were always required to report on the behavior
that their input specifies and D specifies recursive simulation
to H. *Alternative understandings have always been misconceptions*
On 1/27/2024 4:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/27/24 5:28 PM, olcott wrote:The key fact that H(D,D) only halts when H aborts its simulation
On 1/27/2024 4:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/27/24 4:31 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/27/2024 2:44 PM, immibis wrote:
On 1/27/24 20:21, olcott wrote:
On 1/27/2024 1:19 PM, immibis wrote:That a simulation does not halt if it is not aborted only proves
On 1/27/24 20:10, olcott wrote:
On 1/27/2024 12:08 PM, immibis wrote:A simulation is different than a direct execution.
On 1/27/24 17:52, olcott wrote:
On 1/27/2024 10:50 AM, olcott wrote:
The directly executed D(D) never *stops running* unless the >>>>>>>>>>> recursive simulation that it specifies in its call to H(D,D) >>>>>>>>>>> has been aborted by H.
That's a different computation
*D specifies that it calls H(D,D) in recursive simulation*
A thing is not different than itself.
*The direct execution of D(D) specifies*
*that it calls H(D,D) in recursive simulation*
*The direct execution of D(D) specifies*
*that it calls H(D,D) in recursive simulation*
*The direct execution of D(D) specifies*
*that it calls H(D,D) in recursive simulation*
that the simulation does not halt.
*It proves that behavior specified by the input DOES NOT HALT*
*It proves that behavior specified by the input DOES NOT HALT*
*It proves that behavior specified by the input DOES NOT HALT*
NOPE. Not by the REAL definition.
Halt deciders were always required to report on the behavior
that their input specifies and D specifies recursive simulation
to H. *Alternative understandings have always been misconceptions*
No, D specifies FINITE recursion to an H that aborts its simulation.
FINITE recursion is not non-halting.
of D conclusively proves that D DOES NOT HALT. Aborted simulations
do not count as D halting.
On 1/27/2024 5:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/27/24 5:56 PM, olcott wrote:I don't believe that you actually believe that the levels
On 1/27/2024 4:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/27/24 5:28 PM, olcott wrote:The key fact that H(D,D) only halts when H aborts its simulation
On 1/27/2024 4:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/27/24 4:31 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/27/2024 2:44 PM, immibis wrote:
On 1/27/24 20:21, olcott wrote:
On 1/27/2024 1:19 PM, immibis wrote:That a simulation does not halt if it is not aborted only proves >>>>>>>> that the simulation does not halt.
On 1/27/24 20:10, olcott wrote:
On 1/27/2024 12:08 PM, immibis wrote:A simulation is different than a direct execution.
On 1/27/24 17:52, olcott wrote:
On 1/27/2024 10:50 AM, olcott wrote:
The directly executed D(D) never *stops running* unless the >>>>>>>>>>>>> recursive simulation that it specifies in its call to H(D,D) >>>>>>>>>>>>> has been aborted by H.
That's a different computation
*D specifies that it calls H(D,D) in recursive simulation* >>>>>>>>>>> A thing is not different than itself.
*The direct execution of D(D) specifies*
*that it calls H(D,D) in recursive simulation*
*The direct execution of D(D) specifies*
*that it calls H(D,D) in recursive simulation*
*The direct execution of D(D) specifies*
*that it calls H(D,D) in recursive simulation*
*It proves that behavior specified by the input DOES NOT HALT*
*It proves that behavior specified by the input DOES NOT HALT*
*It proves that behavior specified by the input DOES NOT HALT*
NOPE. Not by the REAL definition.
Halt deciders were always required to report on the behavior
that their input specifies and D specifies recursive simulation
to H. *Alternative understandings have always been misconceptions*
No, D specifies FINITE recursion to an H that aborts its simulation.
FINITE recursion is not non-halting.
of D conclusively proves that D DOES NOT HALT. Aborted simulations
do not count as D halting.
Nope.
H aborted a DIFFERENT instnace of D,
of recursive simulation in the same recursive simulation
chain are separate instances.
That would be the same as believing that infinite recursion
is not infinite because each call has a different stack frame.
On 1/27/2024 6:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/27/24 6:51 PM, olcott wrote:So in other words you are claiming to be too stupid to understand
On 1/27/2024 5:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/27/24 5:56 PM, olcott wrote:I don't believe that you actually believe that the levels
On 1/27/2024 4:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/27/24 5:28 PM, olcott wrote:The key fact that H(D,D) only halts when H aborts its simulation
On 1/27/2024 4:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/27/24 4:31 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/27/2024 2:44 PM, immibis wrote:
On 1/27/24 20:21, olcott wrote:
On 1/27/2024 1:19 PM, immibis wrote:That a simulation does not halt if it is not aborted only
On 1/27/24 20:10, olcott wrote:
On 1/27/2024 12:08 PM, immibis wrote:A simulation is different than a direct execution.
On 1/27/24 17:52, olcott wrote:
On 1/27/2024 10:50 AM, olcott wrote:
The directly executed D(D) never *stops running* unless the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recursive simulation that it specifies in its call to H(D,D) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has been aborted by H.
That's a different computation
*D specifies that it calls H(D,D) in recursive simulation* >>>>>>>>>>>>> A thing is not different than itself.
*The direct execution of D(D) specifies*
*that it calls H(D,D) in recursive simulation*
*The direct execution of D(D) specifies*
*that it calls H(D,D) in recursive simulation*
*The direct execution of D(D) specifies*
*that it calls H(D,D) in recursive simulation*
proves that the simulation does not halt.
*It proves that behavior specified by the input DOES NOT HALT* >>>>>>>>> *It proves that behavior specified by the input DOES NOT HALT* >>>>>>>>> *It proves that behavior specified by the input DOES NOT HALT* >>>>>>>>>
NOPE. Not by the REAL definition.
Halt deciders were always required to report on the behavior
that their input specifies and D specifies recursive simulation
to H. *Alternative understandings have always been misconceptions* >>>>>>>
No, D specifies FINITE recursion to an H that aborts its simulation. >>>>>>
FINITE recursion is not non-halting.
of D conclusively proves that D DOES NOT HALT. Aborted simulations
do not count as D halting.
Nope.
H aborted a DIFFERENT instnace of D,
of recursive simulation in the same recursive simulation
chain are separate instances.
That would be the same as believing that infinite recursion
is not infinite because each call has a different stack frame.
Nope.
The the fact that H aborts its simulation has ZERO errect on any
caller of it. Thus H(D,D) aborting its simulation of D(D) does not
affect the direct execution of D(D) that calls that H.
that unless H every H that can possibly exist aborts its simulated D
that neither H nor directly executed D would ever stop running?
On 1/27/2024 6:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/27/24 6:51 PM, olcott wrote:So in other words you are claiming to be too stupid to understand
On 1/27/2024 5:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/27/24 5:56 PM, olcott wrote:I don't believe that you actually believe that the levels
On 1/27/2024 4:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/27/24 5:28 PM, olcott wrote:The key fact that H(D,D) only halts when H aborts its simulation
On 1/27/2024 4:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/27/24 4:31 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/27/2024 2:44 PM, immibis wrote:
On 1/27/24 20:21, olcott wrote:
On 1/27/2024 1:19 PM, immibis wrote:That a simulation does not halt if it is not aborted only
On 1/27/24 20:10, olcott wrote:
On 1/27/2024 12:08 PM, immibis wrote:A simulation is different than a direct execution.
On 1/27/24 17:52, olcott wrote:
On 1/27/2024 10:50 AM, olcott wrote:
The directly executed D(D) never *stops running* unless the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recursive simulation that it specifies in its call to H(D,D) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has been aborted by H.
That's a different computation
*D specifies that it calls H(D,D) in recursive simulation* >>>>>>>>>>>>> A thing is not different than itself.
*The direct execution of D(D) specifies*
*that it calls H(D,D) in recursive simulation*
*The direct execution of D(D) specifies*
*that it calls H(D,D) in recursive simulation*
*The direct execution of D(D) specifies*
*that it calls H(D,D) in recursive simulation*
proves that the simulation does not halt.
*It proves that behavior specified by the input DOES NOT HALT* >>>>>>>>> *It proves that behavior specified by the input DOES NOT HALT* >>>>>>>>> *It proves that behavior specified by the input DOES NOT HALT* >>>>>>>>>
NOPE. Not by the REAL definition.
Halt deciders were always required to report on the behavior
that their input specifies and D specifies recursive simulation
to H. *Alternative understandings have always been misconceptions* >>>>>>>
No, D specifies FINITE recursion to an H that aborts its simulation. >>>>>>
FINITE recursion is not non-halting.
of D conclusively proves that D DOES NOT HALT. Aborted simulations
do not count as D halting.
Nope.
H aborted a DIFFERENT instnace of D,
of recursive simulation in the same recursive simulation
chain are separate instances.
That would be the same as believing that infinite recursion
is not infinite because each call has a different stack frame.
Nope.
The the fact that H aborts its simulation has ZERO errect on any
caller of it. Thus H(D,D) aborting its simulation of D(D) does not
affect the direct execution of D(D) that calls that H.
that unless H every H that can possibly exist aborts its simulated D
that neither H nor directly executed D would ever stop running?
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 307 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 106:30:34 |
Calls: | 6,852 |
Calls today: | 3 |
Files: | 12,355 |
Messages: | 5,415,833 |