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 14:44:58 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <c4c3b9c59683491a8e6fea03a9aca9b14a266a12@i2pn2.org>
References: <vb4plc$2tqeg$1@dont-email.me> <vbcbe4$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>
 <6f80ca08698e36934200fa1e8b134bd8c2b7b181@i2pn2.org>
 <vbhulv$1eco4$1@dont-email.me>
 <d036b5c07a45cf0330892bcef03c4df13c878d90@i2pn2.org>
 <vbi02v$1eis0$1@dont-email.me>
 <fff376f7fcc1d0fd503c4d27135639e85d42bd7d@i2pn2.org>
 <vbi28k$1esag$1@dont-email.me>
 <60be3646ed003a3352dd98e449e1d793e34b5fb2@i2pn2.org>
 <vbi5ls$1ff1p$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 18:44:59 -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
In-Reply-To: <vbi5ls$1ff1p$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 7620
Lines: 139

On 9/7/24 2:22 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/7/2024 12:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 9/7/24 1:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 9/7/2024 11:53 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 9/7/24 12:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 9/7/2024 11:30 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/7/24 12:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/7/2024 11:20 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> 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,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No dishonestly changing the subject.
>>>>>>> The subject is that Joes is wrong that HHH can wait
>>>>>>> on another HHH to abort.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But it isn't a changing of the subject!
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Can the outermost directly executed HHH wait for an
>>>>> inner one to abort and still terminate normally.
>>>>> (a) YES
>>>>> (b) NO
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No,
>>>
>>> Joes cannot understand that.
>>>
>>
>> No *YOU* don't understand that he isn't worrying about if HHH can 
>> terminate normally, 
> 
> *Joes is not plural or possessive, she is not a he*
> *Joes is not plural or possessive, she is not a he*
> *Joes is not plural or possessive, she is not a he*
> *Joes is not plural or possessive, she is not a he*
> *Joes is not plural or possessive, she is not a he*

Ok, but I know men with that name too.

Also, in classical English, the male form can also be used for unknown 
gender.

> 
> My proof must be understood as a sequence of steps.
> The first one is that neither HHH nor DDD ever stops
> running unless HHH aborts its emulation.

So, the problem is that if HHH aborts its simulation, then the DDD that 
calls it will halt.

> 
> Joes could never understand that. She simply chose
> to believe otherwise against the verified facts.
> 

No, what she is pointing out is that if you have HHH abort its 
simulation, it can never prove that it has the right answer.

So, *YOU* are stuck with a dilemma, to you not halt to wait to see if 
you get the right answer at some point, or do you abort and give a 
possible wrong answer.

Your logic seems to think that a possible (or even likely) wrong answer 
given is better than not giving an answer to make sure you don't give a 
wrong answer.

This means you think lying is better than being a speaker only of truth.

That just reveals the flaw in your whole logic system, you think it is 
better to make up a crap answer rather than admit you don't know what 
you are talking about.

Sorry, you are just killing your reputation, as you are just proving you 
don't care about truth.