Path: ...!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: DDD incorrectly emulated by HHH is incorrectly rejected as
 non-halting. --- You are not paying attention
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2024 11:28:18 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <170de1f2c56d4e8e8ec2c3ca1ea97c5fcf85a4d0@i2pn2.org>
References: <v6m7si$1uq86$2@dont-email.me> <v6mhc7$20hbo$2@dont-email.me>
 <v6mito$bbr$1@news.muc.de> <v6mjlg$20sio$2@dont-email.me>
 <v6mlfj$bbr$2@news.muc.de> <v6mlk6$21d9q$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6nu2n$2bepp$1@dont-email.me> <v6op7v$2fuva$5@dont-email.me>
 <v6qoms$2ukg7$1@dont-email.me> <v6rat7$30qtt$8@dont-email.me>
 <v6repr$32501$2@dont-email.me> <v6tbpe$3gg4d$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6traj$3imib$7@dont-email.me> <v703f7$2ooi$2@dont-email.me>
 <v70of6$61d8$8@dont-email.me> <v72kp6$k3b1$1@dont-email.me>
 <v738db$mjis$14@dont-email.me> <v756r9$15qot$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7614g$19j7l$11@dont-email.me> <v77qm6$1ntfr$1@dont-email.me>
 <v78g43$1rc43$5@dont-email.me> <v7ahpv$2arco$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7b5pl$2e2aq$3@dont-email.me> <v7d4mr$2svvi$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7dqs3$30pvh$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2024 15:28:18 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3828004"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v7dqs3$30pvh$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 7092
Lines: 139

On 7/19/24 9:48 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/19/2024 2:30 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-07-18 13:36:53 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 7/18/2024 2:55 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-07-17 13:14:43 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 7/17/2024 2:08 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-07-16 14:46:40 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 7/16/2024 2:18 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-07-15 13:32:27 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 7/15/2024 2:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-07-14 14:48:05 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/14/2024 3:49 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-07-13 12:18:27 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When the source of your disagreement is your own ignorance
>>>>>>>>>>> then your disagreement has no actual basis.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *You can comprehend this is a truism or fail to*
>>>>>>>>>>> *comprehend it disagreement is necessarily incorrect*
>>>>>>>>>>> Any input that must be aborted to prevent the non
>>>>>>>>>>> termination of HHH necessarily specifies non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>> behavior or it would never need to be aborted.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Disagreeing with the above is analogous to disagreeing
>>>>>>>>>>> with arithmetic.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A lame analogy. A better one is: 2 + 3 = 5 is a proven theorem 
>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>> like the uncomputability of halting is.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The uncomputability of halting is only proven when the problem
>>>>>>>>> is framed this way: HHH is required to report on the behavior
>>>>>>>>> of an input that was defined to do exactly the opposite of
>>>>>>>>> whatever DDD reports.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, it is proven about the halting problem as that problem is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which is simply a logical impossibility
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, a halting decider is a logical impossibility, as can be and has
>>>>>> been proven.
>>>>>
>>>>> If it is a logical impossibility then it places no
>>>>> actual limit on computation otherwise we would have
>>>>> "the CAD problem" of the logical impossibility of making
>>>>> a CAD system that correctly draws a square circle.
>>>>
>>>> A logical impossibility does place a limit on computation.
>>>> Otherwise it would be possible to build a CAD system that
>>>> can correctly draw a square circle.
>>>
>>> Of the set of possible things TM's can do them all.
>>
>> Depends on the meanings of "possible" and "thing". Of things other than
>> computation no TM can do any. A Turing machine can determine whether
>> a sentence of Presburger arithmetic is provable but no Turing machine
>> can determine whether a sentence of Peano arithmetic is provable.
>>
> 
> Some undecidable expressions are only undecidable because
> they are self contradictory. In other words they are undecidable
> because there is something wrong with them.

So, you ADMIT that there actually are some correct expression that are 
undecable, and only SOME are based on wrong statements.

> 
> The Liar Paradox: "This sentence is not true"
> (is neither true nor false) and the HP proof are that way,
> yet, only when we expect a decider to return the halt status
> of an input that does that opposite of whatever value the
> decider returns.
> 
> typedef void (*ptr)();
> int HHH(ptr P);
> 
> int DD()
> {
>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>    if (Halt_Status)
>      HERE: goto HERE;
>    return Halt_Status;
> }
> 
> int main()
> {
>    DD();
> }
> 
> *When we understand that*
> (a) The halt decider is not allowed to report on the computation
> that it is contained within. Then the behavior of the directly
> executed DD() is moot.

Says who? That is your lie.

The decider MUST report on the computation its input describes to be a 
Halt Decider, even if that input includes a description of itself.

> 
> (b) The self-contradictory part of the input is unreachable from
> the emulated DD then a simulating partial halt decider does
> correctly compute the mapping from the input finite string to
> the non-halting behavior of this finite string.
> 

No, it is unrachable by the emulation of the decider, but not by the 
behavior of the machine described, this is your fundamental confusion 
because you can't seem to tell the difference between the full reality 
and a partial observation of it.

> int main { DD(); } calls HHH(DD) that must abort the emulation
> of its input or HHH, emulated DD and executed DD never stop
> running.
> 

But HHH is only the program that it actually is. And if HHH meets the 
requirements to be a decider, it WILL aborts is simulation and return 
and thus DDD will returm.

Your "doesn't abort" case doesn't actually exist in the actual HHH you 
are claiming, it is just a lie that you make up.

IT seems you don't seem to understand that essential fact about 
programs, they aren't one until coded, and then they do exactly what 
there coding says they will do.

There is no HHH that actually "correctly emulates" its inpout to the 
point of getting an answer and also is a decider, so you claims assuming 
such a machine are just LIES.

Your whole world seems to be based on similar lies, where you just 
assume things must exists because you think they should, which has just 
turned your into an ignorant pathological lying idiot.