Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Incorrect requirements --- Computing the mapping from the input
 to HHH(DD) --- DOS detector
Date: Mon, 12 May 2025 09:22:17 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <64f7333f5ec598b196e142b18511238e590252af@i2pn2.org>
References: <vv97ft$3fg66$1@dont-email.me>
	<09cea75db07408dc9203aca3fb74408ad3a095b4.camel@gmail.com>
	<vvoubl$3qtsi$1@dont-email.me>
	<bc4fb153ff914177dba706ce6e0dfb467e2126eb.camel@gmail.com>
	<vvp04i$3r5li$3@dont-email.me>
	<853816e160c7b3fe75c71f0728e72989d9fb2e41.camel@gmail.com>
	<vvp1fm$3r5li$4@dont-email.me>
	<b049926b61baa5d69d11655a8af06e537b7acd71.camel@gmail.com>
	<vvqga9$gldn$3@dont-email.me>
	<41e08841caf0d628beb5105bc78531a412eea440.camel@gmail.com>
	<vvql3p$gldn$15@dont-email.me>
	<cb999b6746607a1445c196e485a2c1124eaee8b5.camel@gmail.com>
	<vvqnev$i5d0$3@dont-email.me>
	<07c4f2302645a7e58957b5e5bffed80397a6ddae.camel@gmail.com>
	<vvr0ot$k9nu$1@dont-email.me>
	<04bd32e2a5572305de0376f9569172932ffb252f.camel@gmail.com>
	<vvr2ov$khl4$2@dont-email.me>
	<72f8c8295d3a0ff265a67b0de838516ade16c6d5.camel@gmail.com>
	<vvr6lj$lieg$1@dont-email.me>
	<8667c45172be6519444525c30d280cde06d77e2b.camel@gmail.com>
	<vvr8dj$lu2b$1@dont-email.me> <vvrdlp$mv2a$1@dont-email.me>
	<vvrh1k$n9a9$5@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 12 May 2025 09:22:17 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="4807"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0

Am Sun, 11 May 2025 19:57:24 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 5/11/2025 6:59 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 5/11/2025 6:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/11/2025 5:11 PM, wij wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 2025-05-11 at 17:00 -0500, olcott wrote:

>>>>>>> ZFC corrected the error in set theory so that it could resolve
>>>>>>> Russell's Paradox. The original set theory has now called naive
>>>>>>> set theory.
>>>>>>> I corrected the error of the HP that expects HHH to report on
>>>>>>> behavior that is different than the behavior that its input
>>>>>>> actually specifies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Specificly, "Halt(D)=1 iff D() halts" is an error?
>>>>>> And it should expect: Halt(D)=1 iff POOH(D)=1 (correct problem)?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Yes that is an error because the behavior that the input to HHH(DDD)
>>>>> specifies is the behavior that HHH must report on.
>>>>
>>>> If so, how do we know a given function e.g. D, halts or not by giving
>>>> it to H, i.e. H(D)? Wrong question (according to you)?
>>>
>>> H and D is too vague and ambiguous.
>>> We know that the input to HHH(DDD) specifies a non-halting sequence of
>>> configurations.
>>> We know that the input to HHH1(DDD) specifies a halting sequence of
>>> configurations.
No. The input is DDD. DDD halts. HHH doesn't simulate it halting.

>>>> Instead, every time we want to know whether D halts or not,
>>>
>>> When we intentionally define an input to attempt to thwart a specific
>>> termination analyzer THIS DOES CHANGE THE BEHAVIOR.
No. Change relative to what?

>>> If we let people run uploaded programs on our network we need to know
>>> if these programs are going to halt.
>> 
>> Which means it will give us the wrong answer for DDD,
> 
> Not at all. If HHH does not do this then DDD would get the
> denial-of-service-detector HHH stuck in recursive emulation thus causing
> denial-of-service.
No, HHH could abort *and return that DDD halts*. DDD does not cause "DoS"
in direct execution.

>> as it will halt when executed directly,
> What DDD does in theory does not matter when in actual practice DDD gets
> the denial-of-service-detector HHH stuck in recursive emulation thus
> causing denial-of-service.
You're confusing theory and practice. If anything, the direct execution
is more real than the simulation.

-- 
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.