Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic Subject: Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria --self-evident truth-- Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2024 21:52:59 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 58 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2024 02:53:00 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e88715fb4901ad15131714ef179e795e"; logging-data="3492161"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+KvRXnYbOZXxj94jSbhHkI" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:itSRu1D54nFOou3cJq+cxYeqkW8= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 3827 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] -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer