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: Defining a correct simulating halt decider
Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2024 12:20:08 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <6f80ca08698e36934200fa1e8b134bd8c2b7b181@i2pn2.org>
References: <vb4plc$2tqeg$1@dont-email.me> <vb6o5t$3a95s$1@dont-email.me>
 <vb71a3$3b4ub$4@dont-email.me> <vbbmuc$8nbb$1@dont-email.me>
 <vbcbe4$bdtb$3@dont-email.me>
 <cb6a625f1737dafed130e2bdad14395d95566ba1@i2pn2.org>
 <vbcl61$d8p0$1@dont-email.me>
 <e097e72a4319eb72e8663d055aa54d69af610831@i2pn2.org>
 <vbcnjk$dr54$1@dont-email.me>
 <5d7b0659450f58aec28d4f49b1b59982cedfc694@i2pn2.org>
 <vbcp2d$e330$1@dont-email.me>
 <70a0b7e4bd0a0129649d8e77cdc36339bd74d6a5@i2pn2.org>
 <vbhl0e$1c7u5$6@dont-email.me>
 <4478821a37cfd3f24201caee13e8eb0abfe09c9c@i2pn2.org>
 <vbhpeq$1djl5$1@dont-email.me>
 <2ce63f5729cca1e2a878ee96224e4504ce974957@i2pn2.org>
 <vbhqle$1dpc0$1@dont-email.me>
 <ddd238668be1d2b9e8598893336543864a3b8fef@i2pn2.org>
 <vbhsio$1e1qp$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2024 16:20:08 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1176478"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vbhsio$1e1qp$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5649
Lines: 85

On 9/7/24 11:47 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/7/2024 10:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 9/7/24 11:14 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 9/7/2024 10:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 9/7/24 10:54 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 9/7/2024 9:46 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>> Am Sat, 07 Sep 2024 08:38:22 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>> On 9/5/2024 12:22 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>> Am Thu, 05 Sep 2024 12:17:01 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 9/5/2024 11:56 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Am Thu, 05 Sep 2024 11:52:04 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/5/2024 11:34 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Thu, 05 Sep 2024 11:10:40 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/5/2024 10:57 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Thu, 05 Sep 2024 08:24:20 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/5/2024 2:34 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-09-03 13:00:50 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2024 5:25 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-09-02 16:38:03 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The directly executed HHH correctly determines that its 
>>>>>>>>>>> emulated DDD
>>>>>>>>>>> must be aborted because DDD keeps *THE EMULATED HHH* stuck in
>>>>>>>>>>> recursive emulation.
>>>>>>>>>> Why doesn’t the simulated HHH abort?
>>>>>>>>> The first HHH cannot wait for its HHH to abort which is waiting 
>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>> its HHH to abort on and on with no HHH ever aborting.
>>>>>>>> But why does HHH halt and return that itself doesn’t halt?
>>>>>>> When HHH is waiting for the next HHH which is waiting for the 
>>>>>>> next HHH
>>>>>>> which is waiting for the next HHH...
>>>>>>> we have an infinite chain of waiting and never aborting.
>>>>>> Except for the outermost one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When the outermost HHH is waiting for its emulated HHH
>>>>> to abort and this emulated HHH is waiting on its emulated
>>>>> HHH to abort on and on forever waiting and none ever abort.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which only happens if HHH is defined in a way that it never aborts 
>>>> this simulaiton, and that HHH isn't a correct decider.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That is NOT what Joes has been proposing.
>>> Joes has been proposing that each HHH in the recursive chain
>>> can wait until the next one aborts and that the abort will
>>> still occur at the end of this infinite chain.
>>>
>>
>> No, he is pointing out that get the right answer, each HHH NEEDS to 
>> wait for the previous one to get the right answer.
>>
>> But, if to do so, it results in the definition of HHH that just never 
>> aborts and thus HHH isn't a decider.
>>
> 
> Not He, and stupidly waiting forever is stupid.
> 
> 

So, what do you think HHH can do to get the right answer, which BY 
DEFINITION is about the behavior of the actual correct (and thus 
unaborted) emulation of THIS INPUT (which included that it calls the HHH 
that gives that answer)?

Your problem is you try to justify LYING because the simple method that 
your HHH tries to use shows that it can't work, so you presume it is 
just allowed to LIE and look at a different input then the one it was 
given, the DDD that calls the actual HHH that is making the decision, no 
some hypothetical HHH that isn't actually what the code says it is.


If you try to define that the emulation *IS* by THIS HHH, then you are 
just restricting yourself that *THIS* HHH needs to do that emulation 
which means it isn't ALLOWED to abort, as that is what you defined it to 
be. Thus waiting forever isn't "stupid" but REQUIRED by your definitions.

Sorry, but you just don't seem to understand that requirements ARE 
requirements, and you don't get to lie about them. The ACTUAL 
requirements don't say "emulated by HHH" but are just about the behavior 
of the input, defined as what it will do when it is run, or correctly 
(and thus completely) emulated. The fat that the only way you can 
imagine HHH figuring this out is to do the emulation itself just shows 
the over simplicity of your mindset.