Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Hypothetical possibilities --- Complete Proof
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2024 07:40:52 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <9210adbff7628ec0f2ce8925dbb05dfe1d8082e5@i2pn2.org>
References: <v7gl30$3j9fi$1@dont-email.me> <v84udt$3rp4t$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8bc6j$159av$1@dont-email.me>
 <ea673a5b4ed43fbddf938c69bd013b0cf2ca325d@i2pn2.org>
 <v8c6kb$1de3l$1@dont-email.me>
 <9f3112e056ad6eebf35f940c34b802b46addcad4@i2pn2.org>
 <v8cde0$1ecgo$1@dont-email.me> <v8ctgt$1gbu7$4@dont-email.me>
 <v8dkc3$1kii7$3@dont-email.me> <v8e55v$1nrnh$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8e9vu$1oqd7$1@dont-email.me> <v8fftq$22ege$3@dont-email.me>
 <v8fuj5$24rl1$10@dont-email.me> <v8g1j7$24u77$6@dont-email.me>
 <v8g2jl$26d7d$1@dont-email.me> <v8ibf5$2p7ho$1@dont-email.me>
 <s3CdnbweXt8ohDD7nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <a287d1fc2c1fc90d4381e46eae05287b96e801b9@i2pn2.org>
 <-Vednah5VvbtwTD7nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <87frrmczso.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <AZSdncJX-q4WGDD7nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <87zfprbsvi.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <v8piib$g6tu$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2024 11:40:52 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1533822"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v8piib$g6tu$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 17585
Lines: 389

On 8/4/24 11:56 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/4/2024 9:33 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 02/08/2024 23:42, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Of course these traces don't support PO's overall case he is claiming,
>>>>> because the (various) logs show that DDD halts, and that HHH(DDD) 
>>>>> reports
>>>>> DDD as non-halting, exactly as Linz/Sipser argue. Er, that's about it!
>>>> PO certainly used to claim that false (non-halting) is the correct
>>>> result "even though DDD halts" (I've edited the quote to reflect a name
>>>> change).  Unless he's changed this position, the traces do support his
>>>> claim that what everyone else calls the wrong answer is actually the
>>>> right one.
>>>
>>> So, in your opinion, what do you believe is PO's criterion for "correct
>>> result", exactly?  It would be handy if you can give a proper 
>>> mathematical
>>> definition so nobody will have any doubt what it is. Hey, I know you're
>>> more than capable of getting a definition right, so let's have that
>>> definition!
>>
>> You are joking right?
>>
>> PO has no idea what he's talking about.  I mean that more literally than
>> you might think.  The starting point is a gut feeling ("If God can not
>> solve the Halting Problem, then there is something wrong with the
>> problem") shored up by a basic axiom 
> 
> The equivalent paraphrase of this has always been:
> The inability to do the logically impossible places
> no actual limit on computation.

Which is incorrect, as the admission that it IS logically impossible is 
itself a limitation on computations.

> 
> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
> Professor Hehner and I perfectly agree on this
> and he agrees that it is an accurate summary
> of the result of his above paper.

And you realize his first paragraph puts his paper outside the topic of 
Computation Theory, as it deals with question NOT to "computations" but 
to willful beings (human behavior).

The rules of computtion Theory specificially do not allow for 
"subjecgtive" questions, as there must be a specific answer that is 
independent of who you ask the question to.

> 
> *I humbly apologize for my harsh words to you*
> A stranger that I met last night convinced me that I
> should love my enemies. I have no enemies yet can refrain
> from ever using harsh words towards my adversaries.
> 
> -- that PO is never wrong.  This
> 
> Never meant that at all ever. I have always been
> fully aware that I make many mistakes every day.

Then why do you still refuse to accept that you are worng about this, 
and have been for decades.



> 
>> produces a endless sequence of nonsense statements, like
>>
>>    "the fact that a computation halts does not entail that it is a
>>    halting computation" [May 2021]
>>
>>    "The fact [that] a computation stops running does not prove that it
>>    halts" [Apr 2021]
>>
>> and
>>
>>    "The same halt decider can have different behavior on the same input"
>>    [Jan 2021]
>>
> 
> That does sound stupid.
> *As far as effective communication goes I am somewhat of a moron*
> 
> void DDD()
> {
>    HHH(DDD);
>    return;
> }
> 
> *Here is a better way to phrase what I have been saying*
> DDD correctly emulated by any HHH that can possibly
> exist never reaches its "return" instruction halt state.

But that only applies *if* the HHH that DDD calls is actually such an 
HHH, which means it never aborts its emulation.

This also means that it is NOT correct for any HHH to abort and claim by 
this fact, that the DDD that calls it, is non-halting.


> 
>>> Definition:  A TM P given input I is said to "halt" iff ?????
>>>               or whatever...
>>
>> Do you really think I can fathom what PO considers to be the "correct
>> result" in formal terms?  He certainly doesn't know (in general) and I
>> can't even hazard a guess.
>>
> 
> HHH computes the mapping from the finite string of the x86
> machine code of DDD to to the above specified behavior.

Which included the machine code for HHH, and thus if that HHH aborts and 
returns, the DDD is halting.

> 
>>> It's easy enough to say "PO has his own criterion for halting, which is
>>> materially different from the HP condition, and so we all agree PO is
>>> correct by his own criterion, but that does not say anything about 
>>> the HP
>>> theorem because it is different from the HP definition".
>>
>> He's been very, very clear about this:
>>
>>    "A non-halting computation is every computation that never halts
>>    unless its simulation is aborted.  This maps to every element of the
>>    conventional halting problem set of non-halting computations and a few
>>    more."
>>
> 
> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>      If *simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D*
>      *until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never*
>      *stop running unless aborted* then
> 
>      H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>      specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
> 
> You have agreed that the first part of that has been met showing
> that your understanding has always been better than anyone else.

Nope, it is only proven for a input that calls a "decider" that never 
aborts, since your deciders are not that, they can't use the (non-) fact 
of them doing a correct simulation (since they don't).

> 
>> There is something called the "conventional halting problem" and then
>> there is there is the PO-halting problem.
>>
> 
> The conventional halting problem has the implied false assumption
> that a decider must report on the behavior of the computation that 
> contains itself rather than computing the mapping from its finite
> string input to the behavior that this finite string specifies.

But it IS responsible to decide on a computation that contains a copy of 
its self, as it is responsible for deciding on *ALL* computations (by 
definitions) and it must be a computation (by definition).

========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========