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 ==========