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 --- key error
 in all the proofs
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2024 11:05:36 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <e614d6b981fd5fa6eefc84894a14448d4663e3c7@i2pn2.org>
References: <v8jh7m$30k55$1@dont-email.me> <v98hpa$t1hv$1@dont-email.me>
 <2fee2a47a11178b8ec9089878a51aa7ccb410fc2@i2pn2.org>
 <v98j19$taas$1@dont-email.me>
 <e594b5b47303846026e79ab95d1ba6b528ba6267@i2pn2.org>
 <v98leq$tna8$1@dont-email.me>
 <f2715e52691fec808c2ae5953e65fb42f4e19fa9@i2pn2.org>
 <v98mj9$tunr$1@dont-email.me>
 <86cbe5924d3495f56986483f79567af3e6efde8a@i2pn2.org>
 <v98qbj$ul50$1@dont-email.me>
 <49e9799be11c5e626bc05a421227bb7563982f0d@i2pn2.org>
 <v98uf7$vepo$1@dont-email.me>
 <60f1a533219c1237071f358999228eb48727f5e9@i2pn2.org>
 <v991tu$vepo$2@dont-email.me>
 <895f5e9b934bbfb72925fb109043500d49100a6a@i2pn2.org>
 <v994vs$10cfm$1@dont-email.me>
 <dec62801011bc5bf0b9eb9a62c607cf407198609@i2pn2.org>
 <v99870$14mlk$1@dont-email.me>
 <0f8f134fe961ee00910cce1d7f05b632d7567c6c@i2pn2.org>
 <v9abfu$2nabt$1@dont-email.me>
 <86c21e8a63450bf8b0c32f4f17ba0b503a914fe0@i2pn2.org>
 <v9d01i$39tbd$2@dont-email.me>
 <2c853efb65c3d8e2d4ba1c484f7002c74c68d895@i2pn2.org>
 <v9d1v8$3a9pe$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2024 15:05:37 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2312776"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v9d1v8$3a9pe$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 17357
Lines: 337

On 8/12/24 9:16 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/12/2024 8:04 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 8/12/24 8:43 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 8/11/2024 12:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 8/11/24 8:40 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 8/11/2024 6:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/10/24 10:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/10/2024 9:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/10/24 9:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 8/10/2024 8:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/10/24 8:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/10/2024 7:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/10/24 7:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/10/2024 5:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/10/24 6:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/10/2024 4:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/10/24 5:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/10/2024 4:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/10/24 5:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/10/2024 3:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/10/24 4:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I have countlessly proven it only requires 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enough correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emulated steps to correctly infer that the input 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach is "return" instruction halt state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Except that HHH does't do that, since if HHH decides 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to abort and return, then the DDD that it is 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emulating WILL return, just after HHH has stopped 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its emulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You just confuse the behavior of DDD with the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PARTIAL emulation that HHH does, because you lie 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about your false "tautology".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Denying a tautology seems to make you a liar. I only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say "seems to" because I know that I am fallible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Claiming a false statement is a tautology only make 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you a liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In this case, you lie is that the HHH that you are 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about do the "correct emulation" you base 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you claim on.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is just a deception like the devil uses, has 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just a hint of truth, but the core is a lie.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What I say is provably correct on the basis of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics of the x86 language.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The x86 language says DDD will Halt if HHH(DDD) 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returns a value.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH is called by main() there is no directly executed 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDD()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any where in the whole computation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Except in your requirements, and we can see what it does 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by adding a call to DDD from main, since nothing in your 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system calls main.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All that you need to know is that there is not any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> directly executed DDD() anywhere in the computation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But there ccould be, and the behavior of it is what matters.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The key error of the halting problem proofs all of these
>>>>>>>>>>>>> years has been the false assumption that a halt decider
>>>>>>>>>>>>> must report on the behavior of the computation that itself
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is contained within.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But it isn't a false assemption, but an actual requirement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> A Halt Decider must be able to correctly answer for ANY 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Turing Machine represented as its input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ANY includes those that are built from a copy of itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So, a Halt Decider needs to be able to correctly answer 
>>>>>>>>>>>> about programs that include copies of itself, even with 
>>>>>>>>>>>> contrary behavior, which is what makes it impossible to 
>>>>>>>>>>>> compute.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You seem to confuse non-computable with invalid, it seems in 
>>>>>>>>>>>> part because you don't understand the difference between 
>>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge and truth.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everyone has simply assumed that the behavior of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to a decider must exactly match the direct execution
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of this input. They only did this because everyone rejected
>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation out-of-hand without review.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Because that is the DEFINITION of what it is to decide on.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You just don't understand what a requirement is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Since the DEFINITION of "Correct Simulation" that you are 
>>>>>>>>>>>> trying to use (from a UTM) means a machine the EXACTLY 
>>>>>>>>>>>> reproduces the behavior of the direct exectution of the 
>>>>>>>>>>>> machine described by the input, the correct simulation must 
>>>>>>>>>>>> exactly match the behavior of the direct execution.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You can't get out of it by trying to lie about it being 
>>>>>>>>>>>> different.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This caused them to never notice that the input simulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>> according to its correct semantics does call its own decider
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in recursive simulation thus cannot possibly return to its
>>>>>>>>>>>>> caller. The Linz proof is sufficiently isomorphic so this 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> equally
>>>>>>>>>>>>> applies to the Linz TM proof.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, just shows you don't know what "Correct" means.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Your proof is NOT "sufficiently isomorphic" since by your 
>>>>>>>>>>>> own claims it is clearly not even Turing Complete, so no 
>>>>>>>>>>>> where near isomorphic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If HHH were to report on the direct execution of DDD it would
>>>>>>>>>>>>> be breaking the definition of a halt decider that only 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> computes
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the mapping from its input...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. Since the mapping that it is supposed to compute is 
>>>>>>>>>>>> DEFINED as based on the direct exectut
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No it never has been this. I has always been a mapping
>>>>>>>>>>> from the behavior that the finite string specifies. It
>>>>>>>>>>> has never been the behavior of the actual computation
>>>>>>>>>>> that the decider is contained within.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And thatg behavior is specified to be the behavior of the 
>>>>>>>>>> program the input represents. PERIOD.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That has never been true. It is always the case that every
>>>>>>>>> decider of any kind only computes the mapping from its input
>>>>>>>>> finite string and never gives a rat's ass about anything else
>>>>>>>>> anywhere else.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========