Can D simulated by H terminate normally?
-
Are you trying to trick me into doing your homework? E: oh I see now, it's worse than that. You already wrote papers about this.. Apparently you're some sort of crank scientist then. You cannot disprove the undecidability of the halting problem, *especially* not with simple things like "just emulate the code LMAO". The interesting part about the famous undecidability proof is that it doesn't matter how H works, if you take that away you just get something that doesn't work for mundane reasons.
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.
-
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:
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 code you have provided is a demonstration of something that has already been demonstrated mathematically. Doesn't matter how you phrase your posts that remains true. Lets say you create a interpreter which changes the context in which the problem runs. For example it halts every single time a specific instruction is called. Certainly provable that it halts then. But that is a different problem than the one you posted. So your choices are 1. Find your own problem and prove anything you want about it. You must fully define the problem space. 2. Find a way to invalidate the existing Turing proof using the context in which it was presented. You do not get to change that context - if you want to change the context then see item #1. Note that step #1 even being fully correct will say nothing about the Turing proof.
-
polcott wrote:
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 code you have provided is a demonstration of something that has already been demonstrated mathematically. Doesn't matter how you phrase your posts that remains true. Lets say you create a interpreter which changes the context in which the problem runs. For example it halts every single time a specific instruction is called. Certainly provable that it halts then. But that is a different problem than the one you posted. So your choices are 1. Find your own problem and prove anything you want about it. You must fully define the problem space. 2. Find a way to invalidate the existing Turing proof using the context in which it was presented. You do not get to change that context - if you want to change the context then see item #1. Note that step #1 even being fully correct will say nothing about the Turing proof.
Thanks for answering. It is an easily verified fact that the H/D pair is isomorphic to the Halting Problem's pathological input. 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 It is equally an easily verified fact that D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly terminate normally. (D remains stuck in recursive simulation) This would seem to indicate: (a) When H correctly determines the halt status of D this is not Turing computable. (still possibly useful for termination analysis) (b) The original halting problem proofs never considered a simulating halt decider as an option, thus have a key gap in their reasoning.
-
polcott wrote:
Any competent software engineer...
Any competent civil engineer can design a bridge that doesn't fall down. Yet they do. You said in the OP "Will D ever reach its own.." Ever means just that. In no situation in no time period. Any competent engineer (of any discipline) understands that there is a big difference between one single case and all cases for all time. The problem that you are looking at has been proven to be impossible. Any compentent engineer then understands that they must then do the following to achieve what you want. 1. Invalidate the original proof 2. Provide a new proof that it can fail. This by itself might provide the first. That is mathematics and not software.
When the original proof relies on a single counter-example template as its input to prove undecidability all that is needed to refute this proof is to show how to determine the halt status of this otherwise undecidable input. Anyone with a BSCS can easily verify the software engineering aspect of my work. D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation, thus cannot possibly terminate normally. Once this is understood and accepted then looking at my actual code for H shows that it does correctly recognize a non-halting behavior pattern having the same form as infinite recursion. Summing this all up although there is a universal consensus of subjective opinion that I am wrong the objectively verified facts conclusively prove that my software engineering is correct.
-
polcott wrote:
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 code you have provided is a demonstration of something that has already been demonstrated mathematically. Doesn't matter how you phrase your posts that remains true. Lets say you create a interpreter which changes the context in which the problem runs. For example it halts every single time a specific instruction is called. Certainly provable that it halts then. But that is a different problem than the one you posted. So your choices are 1. Find your own problem and prove anything you want about it. You must fully define the problem space. 2. Find a way to invalidate the existing Turing proof using the context in which it was presented. You do not get to change that context - if you want to change the context then see item #1. Note that step #1 even being fully correct will say nothing about the Turing proof.
The software engineering easily proves that D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly ever terminate normally to everyone having at least a bachelor's degree in computer science. Two people each with a masters degree in computer science have agreed that D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly terminate normally.
-
The software engineering easily proves that D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly ever terminate normally to everyone having at least a bachelor's degree in computer science. Two people each with a masters degree in computer science have agreed that D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly terminate normally.
-
When the original proof relies on a single counter-example template as its input to prove undecidability all that is needed to refute this proof is to show how to determine the halt status of this otherwise undecidable input. Anyone with a BSCS can easily verify the software engineering aspect of my work. D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation, thus cannot possibly terminate normally. Once this is understood and accepted then looking at my actual code for H shows that it does correctly recognize a non-halting behavior pattern having the same form as infinite recursion. Summing this all up although there is a universal consensus of subjective opinion that I am wrong the objectively verified facts conclusively prove that my software engineering is correct.
Try submitting it here for more peer review. Frontiers | Publisher of peer-reviewed articles in open access journals[^]
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment "Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst "I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
-
polcott wrote:
cannot possibly terminate normally.
Nigel Molesworth* wrote:
As any fule kno.
*The curse of St. Custard's
And examining the complete github code of H posted on a link in these messages we can see that H itself correctly determines that D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly terminate normally. H simply recognizes a dynamic behavior pattern having the same form as infinite recursion. 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 Finally we can also see (From the above Wikipedia quote) that H and D have the exact halting problem relationship to each other. Thus it is clear from a software engineering perspective that H does correctly determine the halt status of the halting problem's "impossible" input. If I was actually wrong someone could point out a mistake.
-
Try submitting it here for more peer review. Frontiers | Publisher of peer-reviewed articles in open access journals[^]
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment "Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst "I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
I am aware that there are journals that accept any material if you pay them enough. My aim is Communications of the ACM, where Edgar Dijkstra got his start. Edgar Dijkstra: Go To Statement Considered Harmful
-
I am aware that there are journals that accept any material if you pay them enough. My aim is Communications of the ACM, where Edgar Dijkstra got his start. Edgar Dijkstra: Go To Statement Considered Harmful
OK, then how about starting here. Author Guidelines | Communications of the ACM[^]
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment "Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst "I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
-
And examining the complete github code of H posted on a link in these messages we can see that H itself correctly determines that D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly terminate normally. H simply recognizes a dynamic behavior pattern having the same form as infinite recursion. 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 Finally we can also see (From the above Wikipedia quote) that H and D have the exact halting problem relationship to each other. Thus it is clear from a software engineering perspective that H does correctly determine the halt status of the halting problem's "impossible" input. If I was actually wrong someone could point out a mistake.
polcott wrote:
If I was actually wrong someone could point out a mistake.
I can't speak for anyone else but I am certainly not going to attempt to teach you an entire class on Turing Machine mathematics. And I already suggested that you take exactly that sort of class. I found one that teaches it. I know there are others. Models of Computation[^]
-
OK, then how about starting here. Author Guidelines | Communications of the ACM[^]
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment "Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst "I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
I spoke very extensively with Moshe Y. Vardi the former editor in chief of the CACM about two dozen emails altogether. Back then I could only prove my point though an x86 machine language execution trace. He did not know the x86 language at all so I made zero progress. The only huge success that I had was with: MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that the following verbatim paragraph is correct: If 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 can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. He also agreed that I can quote him on this. It is only the above paragraph that he has agreed to.
-
I spoke very extensively with Moshe Y. Vardi the former editor in chief of the CACM about two dozen emails altogether. Back then I could only prove my point though an x86 machine language execution trace. He did not know the x86 language at all so I made zero progress. The only huge success that I had was with: MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that the following verbatim paragraph is correct: If 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 can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. He also agreed that I can quote him on this. It is only the above paragraph that he has agreed to.
Quote:
Moshe Y. Vardi the former editor in chief of the CACM
How about now, armed with your quote?
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment "Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst "I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
-
Quote:
Moshe Y. Vardi the former editor in chief of the CACM
How about now, armed with your quote?
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment "Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst "I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
-
He has already made up his mind and closed it. I really shouldn't even need that quote. Anyone with at least a BSCS can verify that it is necessarily true. The technical term for a statement that is necessarily true is tautology.
polcott wrote:
He has already made up his mind
Who's 'he', the current editor? Look, if your stated aim to publish there (CAMC), then concentrate your efforts there. It doesn't seem as though 'here' is getting you anywhere.
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment "Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst "I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
-
polcott wrote:
He has already made up his mind
Who's 'he', the current editor? Look, if your stated aim to publish there (CAMC), then concentrate your efforts there. It doesn't seem as though 'here' is getting you anywhere.
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment "Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst "I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
I generally get the same response that I am getting here. Everyone is so sure that I must be wrong that they don't bother to look at a single word that I have said and simply vote me down until the post is deleted. Any BSCS graduate taking five minutes to examine my code can see that D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly terminate normally because it remains stuck in recursive simulation. That by itself should be enough to pique their interest in looking at the additional details. Because my writing style is not even close the the writing style of a published PhD researcher what I say is almost always rejected out-of-hand without review of the substance of what I have said.
-
I generally get the same response that I am getting here. Everyone is so sure that I must be wrong that they don't bother to look at a single word that I have said and simply vote me down until the post is deleted. Any BSCS graduate taking five minutes to examine my code can see that D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly terminate normally because it remains stuck in recursive simulation. That by itself should be enough to pique their interest in looking at the additional details. Because my writing style is not even close the the writing style of a published PhD researcher what I say is almost always rejected out-of-hand without review of the substance of what I have said.
polcott wrote:
Because my writing style is not even close the the writing style of a published PhD researcher what I say is almost always rejected out-of-hand without review of the substance of what I have said.
For some reason I doubt that. What would happen if everyone here agreed with your conclusion?
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment "Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst "I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
-
polcott wrote:
Because my writing style is not even close the the writing style of a published PhD researcher what I say is almost always rejected out-of-hand without review of the substance of what I have said.
For some reason I doubt that. What would happen if everyone here agreed with your conclusion?
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment "Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst "I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
If everyone here agreed that page three of this paper is correct and they sincerely meant this, then I would know that I have finally made my point clear enough and I would submit page three to letters to the editor of CACM. Simulating (partial) Halt Deciders Defeat the Halting Problem Proofs I might have to come up with a much less controversial title such as: Simple Termination analysis between executing C functions.
-
If everyone here agreed that page three of this paper is correct and they sincerely meant this, then I would know that I have finally made my point clear enough and I would submit page three to letters to the editor of CACM. Simulating (partial) Halt Deciders Defeat the Halting Problem Proofs I might have to come up with a much less controversial title such as: Simple Termination analysis between executing C functions.
polcott wrote:
If everyone here agreed that page three of this paper is correct
Probably not going to happen here, so just cut to the chase. Change the title and submit, possibly adding that professors name somehow in the title.
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment "Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst "I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
-
polcott wrote:
If everyone here agreed that page three of this paper is correct
Probably not going to happen here, so just cut to the chase. Change the title and submit, possibly adding that professors name somehow in the title.
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment "Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst "I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle