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: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Incorrect requirements --- Computing the mapping from the input
 to HHH(DD)
Date: Fri, 16 May 2025 12:04:37 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <760e94df2542755235a2393e5bdd54f207706472@i2pn2.org>
References: <vv97ft$3fg66$1@dont-email.me> <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$1@dont-email.me>
 <7281f97665272ea0eb85e56940648f6c807b0b8e.camel@gmail.com>
 <vvralq$me5h$1@dont-email.me>
 <f5a9ca0c0edaeb582b14c3babee27e25d41fc953.camel@gmail.com>
 <vvrgmf$n9a9$4@dont-email.me>
 <15a2c03c9dd9005ee5dc80c5284bff16d167c6ab@i2pn2.org>
 <1007mre$3qb7l$21@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 16 May 2025 16:11:00 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="619670"; 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: <1007mre$3qb7l$21@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US

On 5/16/25 11:50 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/16/2025 10:38 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Sun, 11 May 2025 19:51:27 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>
>>> If on a real system an input tried to fool the denial-of-service-attack
>>> detector IT WOULD FAIL.
>>> Prior to my work a denial-of-service-attack detector WOULD FAIL. It
>>> would not know to reject DDD.
>> No, the goal is not to make HHH run forever. It would not fail at
>> terminating contrary to HHH's result.
>>
> 
> The goal of the counter-example input to the HP
> proofs has always been to make halting undecidable
> on this input. A simulating termination analyzer
> fixes that.
> 

No, it is to show that there is an input that this decider gets wrong.

"inputs" are not undecidable.

Problems are undecidable.

Which means there is not a single program that can give the correct 
answer to all instances of the problem.

The Halting Problem is undecidable, as there is no single decider "H", 
that can correct decide for all inputs, as for any SPECIFIC H, we can 
make a SPECIFIC D, based on that H, that it will get wrong.

H is not "an infinite set of deciders" as that isn't the right category.

H is a specific decider out of that infinite set of programs.

D is also, a specific input, different for each H chosen, which is why 
the proof calls it H^, to show that it is the input based on the ^ 
transform of H.

If you take a different decider HH, then we give it HH^, not H^, there 
is no reason HH can't correctly decide on H^ (it might or it might not, 
but the ^ transform doesn't assert anything about it).

The Simulating Halting Decider can't fix that, and be a program, as the 
proof didn't care about how the decider worked. Your attempts at trying 
to weasle word around things just shows you think it is ok to lie about 
what you are talking about, meaning nothing you say can be taken as 
truthful, as that is just a foreign concept to you.