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: H(D,D)==0 is correct when reports on the actual behavior that it sees --outermost H-- Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 12:57:18 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 74 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 17:57:19 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="628c0b780d2c261756f82ddadd066eb3"; logging-data="2524467"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX184XSHAZVKdkZoXOoBHr3BY" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:/VcDc0Ld/FxJ0Q5nuNW2RiX7ptM= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 5282 On 3/15/2024 12:39 PM, immibis wrote: > 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. This conversation has been moved to here: [Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria] After we have 100% complete closure on that point then we can change back to H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer