Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connectionsPath: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- key error
in all the proofs --- Mike
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2024 13:12:01 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID:
References:
<86cbe5924d3495f56986483f79567af3e6efde8a@i2pn2.org>
<49e9799be11c5e626bc05a421227bb7563982f0d@i2pn2.org>
<60f1a533219c1237071f358999228eb48727f5e9@i2pn2.org>
<895f5e9b934bbfb72925fb109043500d49100a6a@i2pn2.org>
<0f8f134fe961ee00910cce1d7f05b632d7567c6c@i2pn2.org>
<86c21e8a63450bf8b0c32f4f17ba0b503a914fe0@i2pn2.org>
<2c853efb65c3d8e2d4ba1c484f7002c74c68d895@i2pn2.org>
<64ddeeaa3a55a9e410de599bd8df53d3644ee5a3@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2024 17:12:02 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
logging-data="2312775"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To:
Bytes: 23049
Lines: 443
On 8/12/24 12:52 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/12/2024 11:42 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 8/12/2024 11:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 8/12/24 11:34 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 8/12/2024 10:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 8/12/24 9:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/12/2024 8:04 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/12/24 8:43 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/11/2024 12:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 8/11/24 8:40 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/11/2024 6:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/10/24 10:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/10/2024 9:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/10/24 9:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/10/2024 8:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/10/24 8:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/10/2024 7:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/10/24 7:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/10/2024 5:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/10/24 6:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/10/2024 4:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/10/24 5:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/10/2024 4:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/10/24 5:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/10/2024 3:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/10/24 4:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I have countlessly proven it only requires
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enough correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emulated steps to correctly infer that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input would never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach is "return" instruction halt state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Except that HHH does't do that, since if HHH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decides to abort and return, then the DDD that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is emulating WILL return, just after HHH has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stopped its emulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You just confuse the behavior of DDD with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PARTIAL emulation that HHH does, because you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie about your false "tautology".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Denying a tautology seems to make you a liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say "seems to" because I know that I am fallible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Claiming a false statement is a tautology only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make you a liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In this case, you lie is that the HHH that you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are talking about do the "correct emulation"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you base you claim on.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is just a deception like the devil uses,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has just a hint of truth, but the core is a lie.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What I say is provably correct on the basis of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics of the x86 language.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The x86 language says DDD will Halt if HHH(DDD)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returns a value.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH is called by main() there is no directly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> executed DDD()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any where in the whole computation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Except in your requirements, and we can see what it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does by adding a call to DDD from main, since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing in your system calls main.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All that you need to know is that there is not any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> directly executed DDD() anywhere in the computation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But there ccould be, and the behavior of it is what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matters.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The key error of the halting problem proofs all of these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> years has been the false assumption that a halt decider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must report on the behavior of the computation that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is contained within.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But it isn't a false assemption, but an actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requirement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A Halt Decider must be able to correctly answer for ANY
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Turing Machine represented as its input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ANY includes those that are built from a copy of itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, a Halt Decider needs to be able to correctly answer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about programs that include copies of itself, even with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contrary behavior, which is what makes it impossible to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compute.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You seem to confuse non-computable with invalid, it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seems in part because you don't understand the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference between knowledge and truth.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everyone has simply assumed that the behavior of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to a decider must exactly match the direct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of this input. They only did this because everyone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rejected
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation out-of-hand without review.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because that is the DEFINITION of what it is to decide on.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You just don't understand what a requirement is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since the DEFINITION of "Correct Simulation" that you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are trying to use (from a UTM) means a machine the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> EXACTLY reproduces the behavior of the direct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exectution of the machine described by the input, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct simulation must exactly match the behavior of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the direct execution.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can't get out of it by trying to lie about it being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This caused them to never notice that the input simulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> according to its correct semantics does call its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in recursive simulation thus cannot possibly return to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> caller. The Linz proof is sufficiently isomorphic so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this equally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applies to the Linz TM proof.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, just shows you don't know what "Correct" means.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your proof is NOT "sufficiently isomorphic" since by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your own claims it is clearly not even Turing Complete,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so no where near isomorphic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If HHH were to report on the direct execution of DDD
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be breaking the definition of a halt decider that only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the mapping from its input...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. Since the mapping that it is supposed to compute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is DEFINED as based on the direct exectut
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========