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: Sun, 17 Mar 2024 22:14:58 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 138 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 03:14:58 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="17ec9398ed80e19bde6326f5400a6c92"; logging-data="4180780"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19zivZTUN1+kIX1NRbNlgKY" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:B9Vs0k5sxRAN0OdR6Ak4rN3EJwo= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 7302 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. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer