Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Infinite set of HHH/DDD pairs --- truisms Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2024 12:51:29 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 61 Message-ID: References: <60a1c2490e9bd9a5478fd173a20ed64d5eb158f9@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2024 19:51:30 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9aaf30c8a38b34dfe54399611020f1ec"; logging-data="803053"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19/8YRJZGyvRBD6qUbzBtWw" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:KtavC9YkteBFuP3mbPfCL11kQeI= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 4639 On 7/22/2024 12:45 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: > Op 22.jul.2024 om 17:08 schreef olcott: >> On 7/22/2024 9:32 AM, joes wrote: >>> Am Mon, 22 Jul 2024 09:13:33 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>> On 7/22/2024 3:01 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 2024-07-21 13:50:17 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>> On 7/21/2024 4:38 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> On 2024-07-20 13:28:36 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>> On 7/20/2024 3:54 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2024-07-19 14:39:25 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>> On 7/19/2024 3:51 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> >>>>>>>>> Anyway you did not say that some HHHᵢ can simulate the >>>>>>>>> corresponding DDDᵢ to its termination. And each DDDᵢ does >>>>>>>>> terminate, whether simulated or not. >>> >>> >>>>>> Then DDD correctly simulated by any pure function HHH cannot possibly >>>>>> reach its own return instruction and halt, therefore every HHH is >>>>>> correct to reject its DDD as non-halting. >>>>> That does not follow. It is never correct to reject a halting >>>>> comoputation as non-halting. >>>> In each of the above instances DDD never reaches its return instruction >>>> and halts. This proves that HHH is correct to report that its DDD never >>>> halts. >>> It can't return if the simulation of it is aborted. >>> >>>> Within the hypothetical scenario where DDD is correctly emulated by its >>>> HHH and this HHH never aborts its simulation neither DDD nor HHH ever >>>> stops running. >>> In actuality HHH DOES abort simulating. >>> >>>> This conclusively proves that HHH is required to abort the >>>> simulation of >>>> its corresponding DDD as required by the design spec that every partial >>>> halt decider must halt and is otherwise not any kind of decider at all. >>> Like Fred recognised a while ago, you are arguing as if HHH didn't >>> abort. >>> >>>> That HHH is required to abort its simulation of DDD conclusively proves >>>> that this DDD never halts. >>> You've got it the wrong way around. >>> >> >> I am talking about hypothetical possible ways that HHH could be encoded. >> (a) HHH(DDD) is encoded to abort its simulation. >> (b) HHH(DDD) is encoded to never abort its simulation. >> >> Therefore (a) is correct and (b) is incorrect according to the >> design requirements for HHH that it must halt. > > Both are incorrect. An HHH, when encoded to abort does not need to be > aborted when simulated, because it already halts on its own. When no HHH(DDD) ever aborts its input then HHH never halts conclusively proving that some HHH must abort its input. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer