Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Ben's agreement that D must be aborted by H
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2024 21:25:38 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <a81326a27e531cb612cf84328eeea24cf6c76d5d@i2pn2.org>
References: <tic5tr$25uem$6@dont-email.me> <8735bpq5jh.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
	<v7md5g$pi02$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2024 21:25:38 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="11312"; 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
Bytes: 3674
Lines: 55

Am Mon, 22 Jul 2024 14:50:08 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Python <python@invalid.org> writes:
>> 
>> I don't think that is the shell game.  PO really /has/ an H (it's
>> trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines that P(P)
>> *would* never stop running *unless* aborted.  He knows and accepts that
>> P(P) actually does stop.  The wrong answer is justified by what would
>> happen if H (and hence a different P) where not what they actually are.
>> 
>>> In other words: "if the simulation were right the answer would be
>>> right".
>> I don't think that's the right paraphrase.  He is saying if P were
>> different (built from a non-aborting H) H's answer would be the right
>> one.
>> 
>>> But the simulation is not right. D actually halts.
>> But H determines (correctly) that D would not halt if it were not
>> halted.  That much is a truism.
Why did you dig up a 2 year old post that doesn't even agree with you?

> It is also a truism that any input that must be aborted to prevent the
> non-termination of the simulating termination analyzer does specify
> non-terminating behavior or it would never need to aborted.
Changing HHH to abort changes the behaviour of DDD, which calls it.

>> What's wrong is to pronounce that answer as being correct for the D
>> that does, in fact, stop.

>> It's certainly dishonest to claim support from an expert who clearly
>> does not agree with the conclusions.  Pestering, and then tricking,
>> someone into agreeing to some vague hypothetical is not how academic
>> research is done.  Had PO come clean and ended his magic paragraph with
>> "and therefore 'does not 'halt' is the correct answer even though D
>> halts" he would have got a more useful reply.
>> 
> You are conflating two different process instances that have different
> process states. The D correctly simulated by H is an entirely different
> process than D(D) directly executed in main().
Same input, same output.

> D correctly emulated by H specifies recursive emulation that must be
> aborted. D(D) directly executed in main() does not specify recursive
> emulation that must be aborted.
Eh, it does. Simulation doesn't make a difference.

>> Let's keep in mind this is exactly what he's saying:
>>    "Yes [H(P,P) == false] is the correct answer even though P(P)
>>    halts."
>> Why?  Because:
>>    "we can prove that Halts() did make the correct halting decision
>>    when we comment out the part of Halts() that makes this decision and
>>    H_Hat() remains in infinite recursion"
-- 
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.