Path: ...!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 09:44:22 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 190 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 14:44:24 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="17ec9398ed80e19bde6326f5400a6c92"; logging-data="248039"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX195dmPVO6FmN1q3Q0re1X80" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:QSYwZhr0G3PAE1PCUNAn9f+dxW8= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 10346 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 H(D,D)) >>>>>> (1) H(D,D) does not abort its simulation then simulated D(D) never >>>>>> stops running. >>>>>> (2) H(D,D) aborts its simulation then simulated D(D) stops running. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> And your top line says NOTHING about the Ds in set (2), since >>>>> nothing showed them not to run >>>>> >>>>> but your (2) admitts that D(D) will stop running, and thus the top ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========