Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: immibis Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic Subject: Re: H(D,D)==0 is correct when reports on the actual behavior that it sees --outermost H-- Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 18:39:07 +0100 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 59 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 17:39:08 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="915653ff9a2abee92136c653333d21b4"; logging-data="2522623"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18stXWaFH+5OWMpGriq6ND3" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:g3eEUs+dhHT3tdKWCGNg/vnudZU= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 4815 On 15/03/24 18:18, olcott wrote: > On 3/15/2024 12:15 PM, immibis wrote: >> On 15/03/24 18:11, olcott wrote: >>> On 3/15/2024 12:06 PM, immibis wrote: >>>> On 15/03/24 15:17, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 3/15/2024 4:36 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>> Op 15.mrt.2024 om 03:40 schreef olcott: >>>>>>> On 3/14/2024 9:34 PM, immibis wrote: >>>>>>>> On 15/03/24 03:29, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *Actually it is the fact that the top H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ (not a copy) does* >>>>>>>>> *get this correctly that proves that H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not meet the* >>>>>>>>> *original criteria because it does meet the above criteria* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Execution trace of H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ >>>>>>>>> (1) H applied ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulates ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ >>>>>>>>> (2) which begins at simulated ⟨Ĥ.q0⟩ >>>>>>>>> (a) Ĥ.q0 The input ⟨Ĥ⟩ is copied then transitions to Ĥ.H >>>>>>>>> (b) Ĥ.H applied ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ (input and copy) simulates ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied >>>>>>>>> to ⟨Ĥ⟩ >>>>>>>>> (c) which begins at its own simulated ⟨Ĥ.q0⟩ to repeat the process >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The earliest point when Turing machine H can detect the repeating >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Whensoever H detects the repeating state and aborts it is >>>>>>>> incorrect because the state is not repeating. The state is >>>>>>>> repeating if H does not detect the repeating state. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You keep saying that H(D,D) never really needs to abort the >>>>>>> simulation of its input because after H(D,D) has aborted the >>>>>>> simulation of this input it no longer needs to be aborted. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Do you finally understand it? Hah(Dah,Dah) does not need to abort, >>>>>> because Dah halts. Hah should look at its input Dah (which >>>>>> aborts), not at its non-input Dss (which does not abort). >>>>> >>>>> Unless some H(D,D) aborts the simulation of its input D(D) never stops >>>>> running. The outermost H(D,D) sees this abort criteria first. If the >>>>> outermost H(D,D) does not abort its simulation then none of them do. >>>>> therefore the outermost H(D,D) is correct to abort its simulation. >>>>> >>>> >>>> What does "some H(D,D)" mean? There is only one H(D,D). >>> >>> D(D) specifies an infinite chain of H(D,D) unless D(D) is aborted >>> at some point. The outermost H(D,D) always has seen a longer execution >>> trace than any of the inner ones. >>> >> >> D(D) only specifies one call to H(D,D). It is H's fault if H is unable >> to return a value without infinite recursion. > > This conversation has been moved to here: > [Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria] > Strawman deflection ignored. D(D) only specifies one call to H(D,D). It is H's fault if H is unable to return a value without infinite recursion.