Path: eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is INCorrectly rejected as
 non-halting V2
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2024 10:48:43 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <57941999a59cec1606b32d7e826220090ef6a0d8@i2pn2.org>
References: <v6rg65$32o1o$3@dont-email.me>
 <97e0632d0d889d141bdc6005ce6e513c53867798@i2pn2.org>
 <v6sdlu$382g0$1@dont-email.me> <v6td3a$3ge79$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6tp1j$3imib$2@dont-email.me> <v6trdu$3irhh$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6tu01$3imib$11@dont-email.me>
 <73002e2c01a3e0e25970368972b0cbd63b2259eb@i2pn2.org>
 <v6tvc1$3imib$12@dont-email.me>
 <6b7d5975ca67ce8e8cc382bca3cb8e163651b34f@i2pn2.org>
 <v6u3b6$3khl8$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2024 14:48:43 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3137773"; 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: <v6u3b6$3khl8$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US

On 7/13/24 10:35 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/13/2024 9:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/13/24 9:27 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/13/2024 8:15 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 7/13/24 9:04 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/13/2024 7:20 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have a wrong understanding of the semantics of the x86 
>>>>>> language. You think that the x86 language specifies that skipping 
>>>>>> instructions do not change the behaviour of a program.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have the wrong understanding of a decider.
>>>>> All deciders are required to halt.
>>>>
>>>> And are required to give the correct answer.
>>>>
>>>> You seem to think it is ok for them to lie if they don't know the 
>>>> right answer.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As soon as the decider correctly determines that itself
>>>>> would never halt unless is aborts the simulation of its
>>>>> input the decider is required to abort this simulation.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which it never does, so it gives up and guesses.
>>>>
>>>> YOU lie that it does correctly determines the answer, but that is 
>>>> because you lie and don't look at the input that this decider 
>>>> actually has, but look at the input that would have been given to a 
>>>> different decider to show that one wrong.
>>>
>>>
>>> *This proves that every rebuttal is wrong somewhere*
>>> No DDD instance of each HHH/DDD pair of the infinite set of
>>> every HHH/DDD pair ever reaches past its own machine address of
>>> 0000216b and halts thus proving that every HHH is correct to
>>> reject its input DDD as non-halting.
>>
>> But every DDD that calls an HHH that aborts its simulation of a copy 
>> of that DDD and returns is shown to be halting, not non-halting. It is 
>> just that HHH can't see that behavior becuase it aborted its simulation.
>>
>> "DDD" is the program, not the partial emulation of it, so it halts 
>> even if HHHs PARTIAL simulaton of it ddn't reach thatpoint.
>>
>>>
>>> You seem to fail to understand the notion of differing
>>> process contexts. It is a tricky notion for people that
>>> have never done operating system level programming.
>>> https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/context-switch-in-operating-system/
>>>
>>
>> Which is something I don't have problems with, since I have written my 
>> own operating systems.
>>
>> Your problem is you don't seem to understand is that all copies of a 
>> given deterministic program act the same 
> 
> By this same reasoning when you are hungry and eat until
> you are full you are still hungry because you are still
> yourself.

Not at all, I am not a deterministic entity like HHH and DDD.


> 
> After HHH has already aborted its simulation of DDD
> and returns to the DDD that called it is not the same
> behavior as DDD simulated by HHH that must be aborted.
> 

Right, and the question is about the behavior of DDD, not the behavior 
that HHH sees in its emulation of DDD. The first is an objective 
standard, suitable for trying to decide, the second is a subjective 
standard, which can not be an objective mapping of just DDD, which is 
what a decider given that input must be asked to decide on.

So, your logic is just invalid.