Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections
Warning: mysqli::query(): Couldn't fetch mysqli in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\index.php on line 66
Article <usilsb$2hnoi$1@dont-email.me>
Deutsch   English   Français   Italiano  
<usilsb$2hnoi$1@dont-email.me>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article

Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott2@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: =?UTF-8?B?UmU6IFZlcmlmaWVkIGZhY3QgdGhhdCDEpC5IIOKfqMSk4p+pIOKfqMSk?=
 =?UTF-8?B?4p+pIGFuZCBIIOKfqMSk4p+pIOKfqMSk4p+pIGhhdmUgZGlmZmVyZW50IGJlaGF2?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?ior?=
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2024 15:55:22 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 88
Message-ID: <usilsb$2hnoi$1@dont-email.me>
References: <usia2e$2f2pd$1@dont-email.me> <usijm6$1bt2h$1@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2024 21:55:24 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7bba1e21ad186023a2af4b4bf0f27e98";
	logging-data="2678546"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19v3PMdughHRp5ljHL0r4QU"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:S3D4M9UijLipSpLSKasvi4l8YXw=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <usijm6$1bt2h$1@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 4775

On 3/9/2024 3:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/9/24 10:33 AM, olcott wrote:
>> *Verified fact that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ have different behavior*
>>
>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn   // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
> 
> Specifications, not actual behavior until the existance of such an H is 
> shown.
> 
> IF taken as actual behavior, then it is conditional on such an H existing.
> 
>>
>> Execution trace of Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>> (a) Ĥ.q0 The input ⟨Ĥ⟩ is copied then transitions to Ĥ.H
>> (b) Ĥ.H applied ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ (input and copy) simulates ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>> (c) which begins at its own simulated ⟨Ĥ.q0⟩ to repeat the process
>> *This proves that Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ must abort its simulation*
> 
> It NEEDS to in order to meet its specification
> 
> It DOESN'T unless its algorithm says it does,
> 
> If it just fails to answer, then it has failed to be a correct Halt 
> Decider.
> 
> The fact that you reach this conflict in actions, is the reason Halt 
> Deciding is uncomputable.
> 
>>
>> *This is a verified fact*
>> When simulating halt deciders always report on the behavior of
>> their simulated input from their own POV then when Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>> transitions to Ĥ.Hqn it is correct from its own POV.
> 
> In other words, you are admitting to changing the question, and thus 
> LYING that you are working on the actual original problem.
> 
>>
>> *This is a verified fact*
>> When that occurs then H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ would transition to H.qy from
>> its own POV.
> 
> Which just means you are LYING that this apply to an actual Halt Decider 
> per the Halting Theory,
> 
>>
>> When Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ report on the basis of their own
>> POV then Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ reports incorrectly about the behavior of
>> Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ reports the behavior of Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly.
> 
> And thus you are admitting that the H in H^.H is WRONG and thus H is not 
> a correct Halt Decider, because it gets some cases wrong.

It is a verified fact that when H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ meet this 
criteria that H gets the right answer and Ĥ.H gets the wrong answer.

What it not a verified fact is whether or not Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ can meet
this criteria as a Turing machine.

If it cannot meet this criteria as a Turing machine then it is
still that case that Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ either halts or fails to halt.

It may fail to halt by looping without ever transitioning to
Ĥ.Hqy or Ĥ.Hqn. I see no reason why H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ cannot see this.

I generally agree that a pair of identical machines
must have the same behavior on the same input.

This may not apply when these machines having identical
states and identical inputs:

(a) Are out-of-sync by a whole execution trace or

(b) When one of the machines is embedded within another machine
that would cause this embedded machine to have recursive
simulation that the non-embedded machine cannot possibly have.

*I think that the actual difference is the latter case because*
*we have the exact same issue when the infinite loop is removed*

Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ can possibly get stuck in recursive simulation and
H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ cannot possibly get stuck in recursive simulation.

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer