Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: immibis <news@immibis.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria --Categorically
 Exhaustive Reasoning--
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2024 17:35:16 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <ut4ho4$2vq35$4@dont-email.me>
References: <ut1sgk$2buev$2@dont-email.me> <ut20uf$1vtvi$1@i2pn2.org>
 <ut21t3$2d19j$1@dont-email.me> <ut24j0$2dnbk$2@dont-email.me>
 <ut24kj$2djbv$5@dont-email.me> <ut24vk$2dnvv$1@dont-email.me>
 <kQGdnWqR-4ZXRmn4nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <ut2qb5$2i02l$1@dont-email.me> <Zu6JN.446810$Ama9.86698@fx12.iad>
 <ut2vi0$2isof$1@dont-email.me> <ut318a$218kh$1@i2pn2.org>
 <ut3212$2n0uu$1@dont-email.me> <ut32k8$218kh$2@i2pn2.org>
 <ut34d5$2n0uu$5@dont-email.me> <ut38i5$218kg$3@i2pn2.org>
 <ut3911$2nm61$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2024 16:35:16 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f59639d3479d6ab891cdfe655fcf9f91";
	logging-data="3139685"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+IYbHdO9+tp/e7XBsb09dY"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:f2CBXD6Xoyf+VqZlWxh5o9AFfwM=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <ut3911$2nm61$4@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 2714

On 16/03/24 06:00, olcott wrote:
> On 3/15/2024 11:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/15/24 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> The abort criteria derives the exact same result as the
>>> conventional halting criteria yet does not make the mistake
>>> of expecting H to report on behavior that it does not see.
>>> In these cases it derives a different result.
>>>
>>
>> So, you are saying Halting == Not Halting, since the conventional 
>> Halting Criteria says that D(D) Halts, since H(D,D) says 0, and D is 
>> designed to halt if H(D,D) says 0.
>>
>> And your abort criteria says it is non-halting.
>>
>> So, BOOM, you logic system just exploded in contradiciton, or you 
>> admit you are a liar.
> 
> I admit that the original criteria is incorrect when the basis
> is that H(D,D) always reports on the behavior that it actually sees.
> 
> On the different basis of dividing program/input pairs into those
> that halt and those that do not, we need a third return value of ERROR.

ERROR is not the exact same result as the conventional halting criteria.

> 
>>
>>>> So, you are still the liar.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>