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,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Hypothetical possibilities
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2024 15:50:59 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <e975eef57ba6d3d4cc790818c05b7165443f7ce4@i2pn2.org>
References: <v7gl30$3j9fi$1@dont-email.me> <v7h1fl$3lcvq$3@dont-email.me>
 <v7h224$3li66$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2024 19:51:00 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3938153"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v7h224$3li66$3@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3810
Lines: 65

On 7/20/24 3:09 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/20/2024 2:00 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 20.jul.2024 om 17:28 schreef olcott:
>>> void DDD()
>>> {
>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>> }
>>>
>>> int main()
>>> {
>>>    DDD();
>>> }
>>>
>>> (a) Termination Analyzers / Partial Halt Deciders must halt
>>> this is a design requirement.
>>>
>>> (b) Every simulating termination analyzer HHH either
>>> aborts the simulation of its input or not.
>>>
>>> (c) Within the hypothetical case where HHH does not abort
>>> the simulation of its input {HHH, emulated DDD and executed DDD}
>>> never stop running.
>>>
>>> This violates the design requirement of (a) therefore HHH must
>>> abort the simulation of its input.
>>
>> And when it aborts, the simulation is incorrect. When HHH aborts and 
>> halts, it is not needed to abort its simulation, because it will halt 
>> of its own.
> 
> So you are trying to get away with saying that no HHH
> ever needs to abort the simulation of its input and HHH
> will stop running?
> 

It is the fact that HHH DOES abort its simulation that makes it not need 
to. The only DDD that we care about are the DDD that are built on HHH 
that answers, and to answer for such a DDD, HHH will need to abort, and 
from that, we make the DDD that ends up not needing to abort.

Yes, that sounds contradictory, but that is because they are two 
different questions. The first is you decision of what HHH to put into 
the challenge, and with your limited set of options that you have 
limited yourself to, you need to choose one of the aborting ones, or you 
will lose by not answering.

*THEN* the input is created for that specific HHH that you have chosen, 
and now we can actually evaluate the actual NEED to abort but the 
behavior of an unaborted emulation of THIS PARTICULAR input, which 
includes the HHH that it was paired with. That emulator can't be put in 
the location of HHH, but can be put somewhere else in memory, and it 
will show that DDD will halt, and thus HHH doesn't NEED to abort, even 
though it DOES.

The problem is you broke your system such that you can't talk about 
giving a given DDD (which includes the HHH that it calls) to any other 
HHH the way you talk about it, so your wording is just illogical words 
that can't mean what they need to mean. To have built DDD properly, it 
SHOULD have included its own copy of the HHH that it was going to 
confound, but you system doesn't allow that operation because it seems 
to not actually be Turing Complete in what it takes as inputs.

The fact you persist after this has been pointed out just shows that 
either you are just totally mentally incompetent, or you are just a 
pathological liar that doesn't care that their words are not logical and 
the "facts" they use are not true.