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: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- reaches
 its halt state --- Which DDD does if HHH(DDD) returns and answer, which it
 does since it is a decider.
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2024 22:35:02 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <c7ee6bc3691887c493aa9a00c49610fa46bc8fab@i2pn2.org>
References: <v8jh7m$30k55$1@dont-email.me> <v8lfb9$3g2jl$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8lgsr$3gadt$2@dont-email.me> <v8lhrr$3gkbk$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8n6un$3tv08$1@dont-email.me> <v8nums$1n09$6@dont-email.me>
 <v8vah7$29sva$1@dont-email.me> <v8vr7e$32fso$2@dont-email.me>
 <v91vc4$3qp1r$2@dont-email.me> <v92ge1$p1$2@dont-email.me>
 <f37108f5c9868fc309f42ef78982e2c865ad544c@i2pn2.org>
 <v940uh$hqmp$1@dont-email.me>
 <ca6cbe14b2f6d8e912084e2db0d86078e5c113d4@i2pn2.org>
 <v943ir$ii13$1@dont-email.me>
 <a54ea3444e46e8cdd80311a3f7dab8a11c717833@i2pn2.org>
 <v9455t$im42$1@dont-email.me>
 <3ac18da75f5f8e4bcaf17800919bb5dc2658d33c@i2pn2.org>
 <v955rd$o1gt$1@dont-email.me>
 <adc1aa9dbcaab1112f613fb262b17b64a11619a1@i2pn2.org>
 <v96dji$8lqu$1@dont-email.me>
 <352096a93343dd1c5614d27c5e300864b48e2698@i2pn2.org>
 <v96fhf$90t7$1@dont-email.me>
 <6b16c88705f6c0b6a82a454f8d18c5ea9d665a02@i2pn2.org>
 <v96h4j$d1aa$1@dont-email.me>
 <ef112180e1a888b65fba51c8aa921a3858001d01@i2pn2.org>
 <v96j0b$d94c$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2024 02:35:02 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2032647"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v96j0b$d94c$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 5141
Lines: 77

On 8/9/24 10:24 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/9/2024 8:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 8/9/24 9:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 8/9/2024 8:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 8/9/24 9:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 8/9/2024 8:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/9/24 8:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When we look at every HHH that can possibly exist then
>>>>>>> we see that DDD correctly emulated by each one of these
>>>>>>> cannot possibly reach its "return" instruction halt state.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But ONLY ONE of those actuallu "correctly emulates" the input, and 
>>>>>> that one isn't a decider.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In other words you are trying to keep getting away
>>>>> with the bald-faced lie that when HHH correctly
>>>>> emulates N instructions of DDD (where N > 0) that
>>>>> it did not correctly emulate any instructions of DDD.
>>>>>
>>>>> *Give it up you lost you are stuck in repeat mode*
>>>>> *Give it up you lost you are stuck in repeat mode*
>>>>> *Give it up you lost you are stuck in repeat mode*
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, I guess you don't understand English.
>>>>
>>>> Where did I say that simulating N instructions correctly is not 
>>>> simulating ANY instructions correctly.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *Shown above*
>>> "But ONLY ONE of those actuallu "correctly emulates" the input..."
>>>
>>
>> Right, becuase to correctly emulate, you need to correct emulate EVERY 
>> instruction, not just some of them.
>>
> 
> So you defining whole notion simulating termination analyzers
> as incorrect even though professor Sipser has agreed that the
> simulation need not be complete.

No, they just need to do the job right.

But it needs to prove that the CORRECT SIMULATION, which would be 
complete, doesn't ever reach a final state. That COULD be done by 
replacing the decider with a non-aborting version, but you have to do it 
in a way that doesn't change the input, which means in your case, you 
can't change the copy of HHH that DDD calls.

Of course, with a proper setup, where DDD has its own copy of the 
decider, that wouldn't be a problem.

Since, giving THIS DDD, which calls THIS HHH, that tries to use the rule 
to abort, to a actual correct simulation, we see DDD call HHH(DDD) which 
WILL abort it simulation and return to DDD which then reaches its final 
state, so the application of the rule by HHH could not have been based 
on a correct determination that the correct simulation of this input is 
non-halting.

> 
> <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...
> 
> You lost, you are stuck in repeat mode. You have no
> rebuttals that have not been proven false.
> 

Nope, YOU have lost as you can't actually deal with ANY of the points I 
bring up, but just repeat your LIES that have been previously rebutted 
and not countered.

You just are too dumb to realize how stupid you are. The most stupid 
type of stupid.