Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic Subject: Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria --self-evident truth-- Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2024 13:33:40 -0700 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2024 20:35:29 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="2440291"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 13596 Lines: 244 On 3/18/24 12:39 PM, olcott wrote: > On 3/18/2024 1:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 3/18/24 10:45 AM, olcott wrote: >>> On 3/18/2024 11:38 AM, Mike Terry wrote: >>>> On 18/03/2024 15:11, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>> Op 18.mrt.2024 om 15:44 schreef olcott: >>>>>> On 3/18/2024 1:04 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 3/17/24 10:22 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 3/18/2024 12:11 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 3/17/24 9:42 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2024 11:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/24 9:00 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2024 10:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/24 8:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2024 9:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/24 4:27 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2024 12:37 PM, immibis wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/03/24 14:11, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2024 12:22 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/16/24 10:04 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2024 12:00 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/16/24 9:42 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/16/2024 11:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/16/24 9:13 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/16/2024 10:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/16/24 7:52 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/16/2024 9:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/16/24 5:50 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/16/2024 7:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/16/24 8:29 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/2024 11:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/24 8:45 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(D,D) fails to make the required >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mistake of reporting on what it does not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But it DOES make a mistake, because it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does answer the question correctly. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are just PROVING you think lying is ok. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You TOTALLY don't understand the meaning >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of truth. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are REALLY just a Pathological Liar, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as you have no concept of real truth, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The original halt status criteria has the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> impossible requirement >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that H(D,D) must report on behavior that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it does not actually see. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Requiring H to be clairvoyant is an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unreasonable requirement. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *The criteria shown below eliminate the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requirement of clairvoyance* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) 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 correctly simulates its input D until* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Means H does a correct partial simulation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of D until H correctly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matches the recursive simulation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting behavior pattern. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But turning out to be impposible, doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make it incorrect or invalid. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *You seems to be ridiculously disingenuous >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about the self-evident truth* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For every possible way that H can be encoded >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and D(D) calls H(D,D) either H(D,D) aborts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its simulation or D(D) never stops running. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you are incredably stupid to not see this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't prove what you need it to. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, if you define H to not abort, the we get >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a non-haltig D(D), but H doesn't answwer. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, if you define H to abort, then, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We see that you changed the subject away from: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H is an algorithm that simulates its input and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determines whether or not it needs to abort this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is all that this thread's H does. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And what defines "Need"? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the set of every implementation of its spec: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) H(D,D) Simulate input. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Determine if it needs to stop simulating its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to prevent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the simulated D(D) from never halting. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And thus not a specific algorithm? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, HOW do you determine NEED? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is not an algorithmic step. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can only verify that in retrospect. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you fully understand the spec? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, but I think not the way you do. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To me, for H to NEED to abort its simulation, that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> means that when giving the input to a correct >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulator, that simulator will not halt. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes that is correct. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have just proven that H doesn't need abort its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation and the abort decision is incorrect. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The head games of a Troll. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For every possible way that H can be encoded and D(D) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calls H(D,D) either H(D,D) aborts its simulation or D(D) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never stops running. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which prove NOTHING, as D varies with H, so no D that was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> built with an H that aborts its simulation has had its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual halting status tested. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *That merely changes the wording of the same truism* >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ∀H ∈ TM ∀D ∈ TMD such that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(D,D) simulates its input and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> D calls H(D,D) and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(D,D) does not abort its simulation >>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessitates simulated D(D) never stops running. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Third times and still not a charm. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> All those D still use an H that doesn't abort >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> *You keep talking in circles, there are only two sets* >>>>>>>>>>>> ∀H ∈ TM ∀D ∈ TMD | (H(D,D) simulates its input and D calls ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========