Path: ...!news.nobody.at!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: Mon, 18 Mar 2024 16:48:12 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 299 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 21:48:13 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="17ec9398ed80e19bde6326f5400a6c92"; logging-data="429128"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+xykgwfVvY0ImLoogXodBM" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:C8RnpeOGb/HSpR+KO7mTeMjIKTQ= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 16652 On 3/18/2024 4:38 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: > Op 18.mrt.2024 om 22:18 schreef olcott: >> On 3/18/2024 4:11 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>> Op 18.mrt.2024 om 21:40 schreef olcott: >>>> On 3/18/2024 3:30 PM, immibis wrote: >>>>> On 18/03/24 21:20, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 3/18/2024 2:44 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>> Op 18.mrt.2024 om 18:43 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>> On 3/18/2024 10:11 AM, 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 ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========