Does D correctly simulated by H terminate normally?
-
I already have and I'm not the only one to point this stuff out to you. It's been done on other forums.
Asking questions is a skill CodeProject Forum Guidelines Google: C# How to debug code Seriously, go read these articles.
Dave KreskowiakAll of the replies simply assume that I must be wrong without looking at what I actually said. When I specify that the field is "termination analysis" and that there is currently work being done to analyze "C" functions using compiler intermediate languages, then people can understand that this is not a homework assignment.
-
polcott wrote:
The following code is executed in the x86utm operating system based...
No. You are redefining the problem and then ignoring it when people call it out. That program specfically represents a problem that was proven mathematically long ago using the Turing machine. If you want to prove something then you will need to actually provide the same rigor that Turing did. You have not done so.
polcott wrote:
calls H(D,D) that simulates D(D) at line 11
You are ignoring that in the proof H() must be defined for ALL POSSIBLE CASES. You do not get to pick and choose what H() does.
polcott wrote:
Here is an example of work in this same field:
First what journal was that published in? I can find references to the article but not anything that I see as a journal. But as I read the paper it does not really support anything that you are saying. That paper has one specific example. And in fact seems more like an attempt to prove something about a different idiom under test - the "TSR". The paper provides exactly what they did in detail. So I suggest that you answer your own question by applying exactly what they did in the paper to the code that you provided above.
-
polcott wrote:
The following code is executed in the x86utm operating system based...
No. You are redefining the problem and then ignoring it when people call it out. That program specfically represents a problem that was proven mathematically long ago using the Turing machine. If you want to prove something then you will need to actually provide the same rigor that Turing did. You have not done so.
polcott wrote:
calls H(D,D) that simulates D(D) at line 11
You are ignoring that in the proof H() must be defined for ALL POSSIBLE CASES. You do not get to pick and choose what H() does.
polcott wrote:
Here is an example of work in this same field:
First what journal was that published in? I can find references to the article but not anything that I see as a journal. But as I read the paper it does not really support anything that you are saying. That paper has one specific example. And in fact seems more like an attempt to prove something about a different idiom under test - the "TSR". The paper provides exactly what they did in detail. So I suggest that you answer your own question by applying exactly what they did in the paper to the code that you provided above.
Does this reply mean that you can't see that D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly terminate normally because it remains stuck in recursive simulation? or that you cannot see that the relationship between D and H is the exact same relationship specified by the Wikipedia article? Technically H is a partial halt decider because it can only correctly determine the halt status of a few cases. The Halting Problem proofs do prove that H cannot return a correct halt status value to an input designed to do the opposite of whatever the halt decider decides. What the halting problem proofs never noticed is that this same input remains stuck in recursive simulation and thus cannot do the opposite of whatever its halt decider decides when the halt decider bases its halt status decision on the behavior of its correct simulation of this input. I never was asking the computer science question: Does H refute the halting problem proofs? I was always asking the much simpler software engineering question: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly terminate normally?
-
Does this reply mean that you can't see that D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly terminate normally because it remains stuck in recursive simulation? or that you cannot see that the relationship between D and H is the exact same relationship specified by the Wikipedia article? Technically H is a partial halt decider because it can only correctly determine the halt status of a few cases. The Halting Problem proofs do prove that H cannot return a correct halt status value to an input designed to do the opposite of whatever the halt decider decides. What the halting problem proofs never noticed is that this same input remains stuck in recursive simulation and thus cannot do the opposite of whatever its halt decider decides when the halt decider bases its halt status decision on the behavior of its correct simulation of this input. I never was asking the computer science question: Does H refute the halting problem proofs? I was always asking the much simpler software engineering question: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly terminate normally?
polcott wrote:
I never was asking the computer science question:
Do you understand the following statements? You are using an example which has a very specific context - the Turing Machine. The phrasing indicates you are attempting to change the context, but you have not fully defined the context.
-
All of the replies simply assume that I must be wrong without looking at what I actually said. When I specify that the field is "termination analysis" and that there is currently work being done to analyze "C" functions using compiler intermediate languages, then people can understand that this is not a homework assignment.
polcott wrote:
that I must be wrong without looking at what I actually said
If someone claims that they can prove the sum of angles is not 180 degrees then I am not going to look at what they said. If someone claims that they have a lossless compression method that can reduce anything down to a couple of bytes I am not going to look at what they said (I have actually seen a claim like that in a forum.) If someone claims that the world is flat I am not going to look at what they said (I have read articles refuting such claims.) I do not do that because I have taken the actual educational classes that demonstrate that those claims are false. I actually either did the proofs myself as part of class work or at least did a step by step analysis of the proofs and understood those proofs. So I do not need to attempt to validate claims by others that they are wrong. But I already pointed out that if you can prove your contention then write it up and submit it to a real scientific journal. I also pointed out that if you can do that then there will be significant benefits to you personally by doing so. So given that then why are you not busy writing up the article?
-
polcott wrote:
I never was asking the computer science question:
Do you understand the following statements? You are using an example which has a very specific context - the Turing Machine. The phrasing indicates you are attempting to change the context, but you have not fully defined the context.
"You are using an example which has a very specific context - the Turing Machine." Not at all. The code that I wrote is very clearly written in C. I am only asking a straight forward software engineering question about a pair of C functions. Asking about the computer science implied by my question is clearly beyond the scope of this site so I am not asking about that.
-
polcott wrote:
that I must be wrong without looking at what I actually said
If someone claims that they can prove the sum of angles is not 180 degrees then I am not going to look at what they said. If someone claims that they have a lossless compression method that can reduce anything down to a couple of bytes I am not going to look at what they said (I have actually seen a claim like that in a forum.) If someone claims that the world is flat I am not going to look at what they said (I have read articles refuting such claims.) I do not do that because I have taken the actual educational classes that demonstrate that those claims are false. I actually either did the proofs myself as part of class work or at least did a step by step analysis of the proofs and understood those proofs. So I do not need to attempt to validate claims by others that they are wrong. But I already pointed out that if you can prove your contention then write it up and submit it to a real scientific journal. I also pointed out that if you can do that then there will be significant benefits to you personally by doing so. So given that then why are you not busy writing up the article?
This is the 12th article that I have written up in the last two years: Simulating (partial) Halt Deciders Defeat the Halting Problem Proofs
-
polcott wrote:
that I must be wrong without looking at what I actually said
If someone claims that they can prove the sum of angles is not 180 degrees then I am not going to look at what they said. If someone claims that they have a lossless compression method that can reduce anything down to a couple of bytes I am not going to look at what they said (I have actually seen a claim like that in a forum.) If someone claims that the world is flat I am not going to look at what they said (I have read articles refuting such claims.) I do not do that because I have taken the actual educational classes that demonstrate that those claims are false. I actually either did the proofs myself as part of class work or at least did a step by step analysis of the proofs and understood those proofs. So I do not need to attempt to validate claims by others that they are wrong. But I already pointed out that if you can prove your contention then write it up and submit it to a real scientific journal. I also pointed out that if you can do that then there will be significant benefits to you personally by doing so. So given that then why are you not busy writing up the article?
Two people each with masters degrees in computer science have confirmed that D correctly simulated by H cannot possible terminate normally. MIT Professor Michael Sipser1 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 has also agreed that I can quote him on this. He has only agreed to the above word-for-word paragraph. He has not agreed with anything else. 1 author of the best selling book on the theory of computation Introduction to the Theory of Computation 3rd Edition
-
polcott wrote:
that I must be wrong without looking at what I actually said
If someone claims that they can prove the sum of angles is not 180 degrees then I am not going to look at what they said. If someone claims that they have a lossless compression method that can reduce anything down to a couple of bytes I am not going to look at what they said (I have actually seen a claim like that in a forum.) If someone claims that the world is flat I am not going to look at what they said (I have read articles refuting such claims.) I do not do that because I have taken the actual educational classes that demonstrate that those claims are false. I actually either did the proofs myself as part of class work or at least did a step by step analysis of the proofs and understood those proofs. So I do not need to attempt to validate claims by others that they are wrong. But I already pointed out that if you can prove your contention then write it up and submit it to a real scientific journal. I also pointed out that if you can do that then there will be significant benefits to you personally by doing so. So given that then why are you not busy writing up the article?
I took the time to point-by-point show the errors of a video of a working perpetual motion machine that was being promoted on Facebook. This took me less than five minutes. When anyone tries to do that with my claim they run into the brick wall of this 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.
-
I took the time to point-by-point show the errors of a video of a working perpetual motion machine that was being promoted on Facebook. This took me less than five minutes. When anyone tries to do that with my claim they run into the brick wall of this 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.
It's a bot.
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
-
Two people each with masters degrees in computer science have confirmed that D correctly simulated by H cannot possible terminate normally. MIT Professor Michael Sipser1 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 has also agreed that I can quote him on this. He has only agreed to the above word-for-word paragraph. He has not agreed with anything else. 1 author of the best selling book on the theory of computation Introduction to the Theory of Computation 3rd Edition
polcott wrote:
Two people each with masters degrees in computer science
And a heart surgeon promotes homeopathic remedies. So thus those must work?
polcott wrote:
He has also agreed that I can quote him on this.
If you are already convinced then why are you posting here?
-
This is the 12th article that I have written up in the last two years: Simulating (partial) Halt Deciders Defeat the Halting Problem Proofs
polcott wrote:
This is the 12th article
I don't care. There are probably thousands of articles promoting cow urine as a cure for cancer and MBA's in India are presumably producing papers all the time on Astrology since that is a degree program in multiple universities. What I said was that you should get published in a formal mathematics journal. At a minimal such a journal must not be 'pay per publish'.
-
"You are using an example which has a very specific context - the Turing Machine." Not at all. The code that I wrote is very clearly written in C. I am only asking a straight forward software engineering question about a pair of C functions. Asking about the computer science implied by my question is clearly beyond the scope of this site so I am not asking about that.
polcott wrote:
Not at all. The code that I wrote is very clearly written in C.
Sigh...again.... The example code originates from Turning Machine math. If you want to prove something OUTSIDE of the Turing Machine then you must formally define the context then provide the proof from that. Nothing you have posted here comes even close to be a formal proof. And I am certainly not going to review anything you have posted elsewhere.
-
polcott wrote:
The following code is executed in the x86utm operating system based...
No. You are redefining the problem and then ignoring it when people call it out. That program specfically represents a problem that was proven mathematically long ago using the Turing machine. If you want to prove something then you will need to actually provide the same rigor that Turing did. You have not done so.
polcott wrote:
calls H(D,D) that simulates D(D) at line 11
You are ignoring that in the proof H() must be defined for ALL POSSIBLE CASES. You do not get to pick and choose what H() does.
polcott wrote:
Here is an example of work in this same field:
First what journal was that published in? I can find references to the article but not anything that I see as a journal. But as I read the paper it does not really support anything that you are saying. That paper has one specific example. And in fact seems more like an attempt to prove something about a different idiom under test - the "TSR". The paper provides exactly what they did in detail. So I suggest that you answer your own question by applying exactly what they did in the paper to the code that you provided above.
TRhankls this information https://pubfonts.com[^]