Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- key error
 in all the proofs
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2024 07:08:08 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <0f8f134fe961ee00910cce1d7f05b632d7567c6c@i2pn2.org>
References: <v8jh7m$30k55$1@dont-email.me> <v98ag9$rj63$1@dont-email.me>
 <9721b1bcc4a6849dabc5d7956754292823381840@i2pn2.org>
 <v98e8s$sddi$2@dont-email.me>
 <f7a568982428ce74da1635a0537c47580063d45b@i2pn2.org>
 <v98g9c$sres$1@dont-email.me>
 <5586bed1ae799730f4f5cda602007aa0a67a5b71@i2pn2.org>
 <v98hpa$t1hv$1@dont-email.me>
 <2fee2a47a11178b8ec9089878a51aa7ccb410fc2@i2pn2.org>
 <v98j19$taas$1@dont-email.me>
 <e594b5b47303846026e79ab95d1ba6b528ba6267@i2pn2.org>
 <v98leq$tna8$1@dont-email.me>
 <f2715e52691fec808c2ae5953e65fb42f4e19fa9@i2pn2.org>
 <v98mj9$tunr$1@dont-email.me>
 <86cbe5924d3495f56986483f79567af3e6efde8a@i2pn2.org>
 <v98qbj$ul50$1@dont-email.me>
 <49e9799be11c5e626bc05a421227bb7563982f0d@i2pn2.org>
 <v98uf7$vepo$1@dont-email.me>
 <60f1a533219c1237071f358999228eb48727f5e9@i2pn2.org>
 <v991tu$vepo$2@dont-email.me>
 <895f5e9b934bbfb72925fb109043500d49100a6a@i2pn2.org>
 <v994vs$10cfm$1@dont-email.me>
 <dec62801011bc5bf0b9eb9a62c607cf407198609@i2pn2.org>
 <v99870$14mlk$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2024 11:08:08 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2191228"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v99870$14mlk$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 14147
Lines: 279

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
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No it never has been this. I has always been a mapping
>>>>> from the behavior that the finite string specifies. It
>>>>> has never been the behavior of the actual computation
>>>>> that the decider is contained within.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And thatg behavior is specified to be the behavior of the program 
>>>> the input represents. PERIOD.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That has never been true. It is always the case that every
>>> decider of any kind only computes the mapping from its input
>>> finite string and never gives a rat's ass about anything else
>>> anywhere else.
>>
>> No, you are confusing capability with requirements.
>>
>> A "Foo Decider" has ALWAYS been required to compute the "Foo" mapping, 
>> as that mapping is defined.
>>
>> The "Halting" mapping is defined as the behavior of the machine/input 
>> represented by the input, so the input needs to be a representation of 
>> the program and input and the decider tries to compute the mapping of 
>> that representation to the behavior that program represents.
>>
>> How that isn't the "mapping" of the input to a Halt Decider seems to 
>> put a big hole in your argument.
>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========