Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!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: Mon, 12 Aug 2024 12:10:52 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <64ddeeaa3a55a9e410de599bd8df53d3644ee5a3@i2pn2.org>
References: <v8jh7m$30k55$1@dont-email.me> <v98j19$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>
 <0f8f134fe961ee00910cce1d7f05b632d7567c6c@i2pn2.org>
 <v9abfu$2nabt$1@dont-email.me>
 <86c21e8a63450bf8b0c32f4f17ba0b503a914fe0@i2pn2.org>
 <v9d01i$39tbd$2@dont-email.me>
 <2c853efb65c3d8e2d4ba1c484f7002c74c68d895@i2pn2.org>
 <v9d1v8$3a9pe$1@dont-email.me>
 <e614d6b981fd5fa6eefc84894a14448d4663e3c7@i2pn2.org>
 <v9da2d$3bth4$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2024 16:10:52 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2312775"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v9da2d$3bth4$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 20698
Lines: 409

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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========