Can D simulated by H terminate normally?
-
Upvoted your question because someone else down voted it and certainly did not provide a reason. They might have considered it a homework question. Or because that exact same problem and presumably answer can be found by googling.
-
I know that the answer is dead obvious (at least to me) I need to know whether or not the answer is equally dead obvious to other professional software engineers. I have been a professional C++ software engineer since 2004.
This is discussed in the same question you posted in the other forum. And since I now know the context, you are looking a problem that has been mathematically proven to be true. (Well technically proven to be unprovable.) It has nothing to do with software in the context that you are suggesting.
polcott wrote:
I have been a professional C++ software engineer since 2004.
You should look to your local universities and to the mathematics departments in each and find at least one class on Turing mathematics. This will be a class specific to mathematics and not software (although these days they might want you to write one or two simple programs.) If there is more than one then you should take all of them.
-
This is discussed in the same question you posted in the other forum. And since I now know the context, you are looking a problem that has been mathematically proven to be true. (Well technically proven to be unprovable.) It has nothing to do with software in the context that you are suggesting.
polcott wrote:
I have been a professional C++ software engineer since 2004.
You should look to your local universities and to the mathematics departments in each and find at least one class on Turing mathematics. This will be a class specific to mathematics and not software (although these days they might want you to write one or two simple programs.) If there is more than one then you should take all of them.
I have had this very extensively reviewed (for several years) prior to posting here. The bottom line is that this is a tautology, thus impossibly false: When simulating (partial) halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running unless aborted then H is necessarily correct to abort its simulation and reject this input as non-halting. When this same reasoning is applied to the Peter Linz Turing Machine based Halting Problem proof the same result is derived.
-
I have had this very extensively reviewed (for several years) prior to posting here. The bottom line is that this is a tautology, thus impossibly false: When simulating (partial) halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running unless aborted then H is necessarily correct to abort its simulation and reject this input as non-halting. When this same reasoning is applied to the Peter Linz Turing Machine based Halting Problem proof the same result is derived.
polcott wrote:
The bottom line is that this is a tautology, thus impossibly false:
Certainly if you have refuted a significant proof that has been in place for perhaps 80 years or more then you should immediately write it up and submit the article to one of the formal mathematical journals. It would be an astounding achievement. It would likely be submitted for several significant awards (along with monetary awards) and would likely lead to you getting quite a few job offers from both universities and companies. I am eagerly awaiting to see the announcement of this when it is published.
-
polcott wrote:
The bottom line is that this is a tautology, thus impossibly false:
Certainly if you have refuted a significant proof that has been in place for perhaps 80 years or more then you should immediately write it up and submit the article to one of the formal mathematical journals. It would be an astounding achievement. It would likely be submitted for several significant awards (along with monetary awards) and would likely lead to you getting quite a few job offers from both universities and companies. I am eagerly awaiting to see the announcement of this when it is published.
Any fully competent software engineer can easily verify for themselves that D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly terminate normally. For any program H that might determine whether programs halt, a "pathological" program D, called with some input, can pass its own source and its input to H and then specifically do the opposite of what H predicts D will do. No H can exist that handles this case. Wikipedia: Halting problem These same people can also see that the relationship between H and D exactly matches the above pattern. For most people we never get that far, they simply assume that I must be wrong and stop looking at what I have said the moment that they hear the name of the subject. If we do get that far then they object that it would not work this same way for actual Turing machines. Then I show that how this same reasoning applies to the Peter Linz (Turing machine based) Halting Problem proof. Any fully competent software engineer can easily verify that this is necessarily true: When (partial) simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running unless aborted then H is necessarily correct to abort its simulation and reject this input as non-halting.
-
This is discussed in the same question you posted in the other forum. And since I now know the context, you are looking a problem that has been mathematically proven to be true. (Well technically proven to be unprovable.) It has nothing to do with software in the context that you are suggesting.
polcott wrote:
I have been a professional C++ software engineer since 2004.
You should look to your local universities and to the mathematics departments in each and find at least one class on Turing mathematics. This will be a class specific to mathematics and not software (although these days they might want you to write one or two simple programs.) If there is more than one then you should take all of them.
"they might want you to write one or two simple programs" Like I said I have been a professional C++ software engineer since 2004. I have written many complex system software programs. One of these programs is provided on the following link. It is the one of the files of my x86utm operating system. This system provides the means for one C function to execute another C function in debug step mode. This system is anchored in a very excellent open source x86 emulator. Here is the full source-code for H and D. fully operational sample code
-
polcott wrote:
The bottom line is that this is a tautology, thus impossibly false:
Certainly if you have refuted a significant proof that has been in place for perhaps 80 years or more then you should immediately write it up and submit the article to one of the formal mathematical journals. It would be an astounding achievement. It would likely be submitted for several significant awards (along with monetary awards) and would likely lead to you getting quite a few job offers from both universities and companies. I am eagerly awaiting to see the announcement of this when it is published.
That seems to be a sarcastic way of saying that you don't want to spend five minutes verifying that this is a tautology: When simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running unless aborted then H is necessarily correct to abort its simulation and reject this input as non-halting.
-
polcott wrote:
The bottom line is that this is a tautology, thus impossibly false:
Certainly if you have refuted a significant proof that has been in place for perhaps 80 years or more then you should immediately write it up and submit the article to one of the formal mathematical journals. It would be an astounding achievement. It would likely be submitted for several significant awards (along with monetary awards) and would likely lead to you getting quite a few job offers from both universities and companies. I am eagerly awaiting to see the announcement of this when it is published.
One can easily verify that D correctly simulated by H would never terminate normally because D would remain stuck in recursive simulation. Because recursive simulation demonstrates the same dynamic behavior pattern as infinite recursion it can also be understood that this behavior pattern can be recognized by an algorithm. From this we can see that from a software engineering perspective (at least) that H can correctly report that its simulated input would never terminate normally. Whether or not these insights apply to the actual halting problem is a next level review that must be done by a qualified computer scientist. The key issue here is Turing computability.
-
polcott wrote:
The bottom line is that this is a tautology, thus impossibly false:
Certainly if you have refuted a significant proof that has been in place for perhaps 80 years or more then you should immediately write it up and submit the article to one of the formal mathematical journals. It would be an astounding achievement. It would likely be submitted for several significant awards (along with monetary awards) and would likely lead to you getting quite a few job offers from both universities and companies. I am eagerly awaiting to see the announcement of this when it is published.