Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!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 14:16:51 -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 18:16:52 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="2312775"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 25228 Lines: 486 On 8/12/24 1:32 PM, olcott wrote: > On 8/12/2024 12:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> 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 ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========