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: DDD INcorrectly emulated by HHH is INcorrectly rejected as
 non-halting. --- You are not paying attention
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2024 21:12:09 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <d5c177c03e5ad914d2830f8b0896f43deee890de@i2pn2.org>
References: <v6m7si$1uq86$2@dont-email.me> <v6mhc7$20hbo$2@dont-email.me>
 <v6mito$bbr$1@news.muc.de> <v6mjlg$20sio$2@dont-email.me>
 <v6mlfj$bbr$2@news.muc.de> <v6mlk6$21d9q$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6nu2n$2bepp$1@dont-email.me> <v6op7v$2fuva$5@dont-email.me>
 <v6qoms$2ukg7$1@dont-email.me> <v6rat7$30qtt$8@dont-email.me>
 <v6repr$32501$2@dont-email.me> <v6tbpe$3gg4d$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6traj$3imib$7@dont-email.me> <v703f7$2ooi$2@dont-email.me>
 <v70of6$61d8$8@dont-email.me> <v72kp6$k3b1$1@dont-email.me>
 <v738db$mjis$14@dont-email.me> <v756r9$15qot$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7614g$19j7l$11@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2024 01:12:09 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3536827"; 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: <v7614g$19j7l$11@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5244
Lines: 87

On 7/16/24 10:46 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/16/2024 2:18 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-07-15 13:32:27 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 7/15/2024 2:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-07-14 14:48:05 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 7/14/2024 3:49 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-07-13 12:18:27 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>> When the source of your disagreement is your own ignorance
>>>>> then your disagreement has no actual basis.
>>>>>
>>>>> *You can comprehend this is a truism or fail to*
>>>>> *comprehend it disagreement is necessarily incorrect*
>>>>> Any input that must be aborted to prevent the non
>>>>> termination of HHH necessarily specifies non-halting
>>>>> behavior or it would never need to be aborted.
>>>>>
>>>>> Disagreeing with the above is analogous to disagreeing
>>>>> with arithmetic.
>>>>
>>>> A lame analogy. A better one is: 2 + 3 = 5 is a proven theorem just
>>>> like the uncomputability of halting is.
>>>
>>> The uncomputability of halting is only proven when the problem
>>> is framed this way: HHH is required to report on the behavior
>>> of an input that was defined to do exactly the opposite of
>>> whatever DDD reports.
>>
>> No, it is proven about the halting problem as that problem is.
> 
> Which is simply a logical impossibility thus no actual
> limit to computation more that this logical impossibility:
> What time is it (yes or no)?
> 
> *This is isomorphic the HP decider/input pair*
> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this (yes/no) question? (Hehner:2018:2)
> 
> Giving credit where credit is due Richard corrected
> a loophole in the original question.
> 
>> The program that predicts what HHH would say and does the opposite
>> is just one eample of a program.
>>
> 
> It is just like a Liar Paradox input to a True(L, x) predicate.
> The correct answer is INVALID INPUT.

if the system allows the Liar Paradox input to be given to True(L, x) 
than that shows that system can't have the True Predicate, as "INVALID 
INPUT" isn't an allowed answer for a predicate, only True or False.

Your problem is you don't understand what the words mean, because you 
decided it was smarter to just be ignorant;

> 
>>> When HHH is defined such that an input that was defined to
>>> do the opposite of whatever HHH reports can never reach this
>>> point in its execution trace then the prior halting problem
>>> proof has been defeated.
>>
> 
>      From a programmer's point of view, if we apply an
>      interpreter to a program text that includes a call
>      to that same interpreter with that same text as
>      argument, then we have an infinite loop. A halting
>      program has some of the same character as an interpreter:
>      it applies to texts through abstract interpretation.
>      Unsurprisingly, if we apply a halting program to a
>      program text that includes a call to that same halting
>      program with that same text as argument, then we have
>      an infinite loop. (Hehner:2011:15)
> 
> [5] E C R Hehner. Problems with the Halting Problem, COMPUTING2011 
> Symposium on 75 years of Turing Machine and Lambda-Calculus, Karlsruhe 
> Germany, invited, 2011 October 20-21; Advances in Computer Science and 
> Engineering v.10 n.1 p.31-60, 2013
> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf
> 
>> No, not anymore that 2 + 3 = 5 is defeated by a 2 that is defined to
>> shrink to 1 if 3 is added to it.
>>
> 
> *Simulating Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D*
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Simulating_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
>