Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott2@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Categorically exhaustive reasoning applied to the decision to
 abort
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:50:08 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 51
Message-ID: <utsv30$1bgkl$5@dont-email.me>
References: <utlf69$39fl1$1@dont-email.me> <utlff5$3997r$3@dont-email.me>
 <utlgg1$2o1am$20@i2pn2.org> <utlirq$3dsl2$2@dont-email.me>
 <utmo5e$2plc2$8@i2pn2.org> <utmqu6$3msk5$1@dont-email.me>
 <utnmqm$3tjdn$1@dont-email.me> <utnoks$3ttm3$2@dont-email.me>
 <uto0b9$3vihs$2@dont-email.me> <uto2b5$3vtt8$4@dont-email.me>
 <uto3fp$8h3$1@dont-email.me> <uto3qm$4tt$4@dont-email.me>
 <uto4km$fq4$3@dont-email.me> <uto790$4g9n$3@dont-email.me>
 <utpl5g$fgbt$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2024 23:50:08 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ed7380a2891ee4a52fa74f3120dcb40c";
	logging-data="1426069"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18NMGGXXm5aP5YuU8WywDnk"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:PYBA9DgmgmSX25aErFFIzYO1Xdw=
In-Reply-To: <utpl5g$fgbt$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3332

On 3/24/2024 11:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-03-24 03:39:12 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 3/23/2024 9:54 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 24/03/24 03:40, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/23/2024 9:34 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 24/03/24 03:15, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/23/2024 8:40 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>> On 24/03/24 00:29, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2024 5:58 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 23/03/24 16:02, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> (b) H(D,D) that DOES abort its simulation is correct
>>>>>>>>>>      (ABOUT THIS ABORT DECISION)
>>>>>>>>>>      because it would halt and all deciders must always halt.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> To be a decider it has to give an answer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> To be a halt decider it has to give an answer that is the same 
>>>>>>>>> as whether the direct execution of its input would halt.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That would entail that
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tough shit. That is the requirement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I proved otherwise in the parts you erased.
>>>>>
>>>>> You proved that the requirement is not actually the requirement?
>>>>
>>>> I proved that it cannot be a coherent requirement, it can still
>>>> be an incoherent requirement. Try and think it through for yourself.
>>>
>>> Every program/input pair either halts some time, or never halts.
>>> Determining this is a coherent requirement.
>>
>> That part is coherent.
> 
> The part that this determination must be done by a Turing machine
> using descriptions of the program and input is coherent, too.
> 

Every decider is required by definition to only report on what
this input specifies.

int sum(int x, int y){ return x + y; }
sum(3,4) is not allowed to report on the sum of 5 + 6
even if you really really believe that it should.

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer