Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria --self-evident truth--
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2024 09:00:07 -0700
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <ut7427$26h17$3@i2pn2.org>
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> <ut2675$1vtvj$9@i2pn2.org>
 <ut26mi$2e06s$5@dont-email.me> <ut27l8$1vtvj$17@i2pn2.org>
 <ut283n$2e06s$9@dont-email.me> <ut2ava$1vtvi$14@i2pn2.org>
 <ut2dml$2ffu8$3@dont-email.me> <ut2h1a$1vtvj$24@i2pn2.org>
 <ut2iqa$2gkoj$1@dont-email.me> <ut2ler$1vtvj$28@i2pn2.org>
 <ut32q0$2n0uu$2@dont-email.me> <ut33k7$218kg$2@i2pn2.org>
 <ut34k2$2n0uu$6@dont-email.me> <ut377b$218kh$3@i2pn2.org>
 <ut4dt4$2v4ce$1@dont-email.me> <ut5d34$23hsb$8@i2pn2.org>
 <ut5env$35hhq$2@dont-email.me> <ut5lbn$23hsb$14@i2pn2.org>
 <ut5lub$3aia1$1@dont-email.me> <ut5pn8$23hsb$17@i2pn2.org>
 <ut5qld$3bau4$4@dont-email.me> <ut5rhp$23hsc$23@i2pn2.org>
 <ut5sbq$3bm5k$1@dont-email.me> <ut5tcl$23hsb$19@i2pn2.org>
 <ut5tlk$3bq8h$2@dont-email.me> <ut5um7$23hsc$25@i2pn2.org>
 <ut6q6q$3hh79$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2024 16:00:08 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2311207"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <ut6q6q$3hh79$3@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 9891
Lines: 204

On 3/17/24 6:11 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/17/2024 12:22 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/16/24 10:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/17/2024 12:00 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/16/24 9:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/16/2024 11:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/16/24 9:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/16/2024 10:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/16/24 7:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/16/2024 9:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/16/24 5:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/16/2024 7:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/16/24 8:29 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/2024 11:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/24 8:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(D,D) fails to make the required mistake of reporting on 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what it does not see.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But it DOES make a mistake, because it does answer the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question correctly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are just PROVING you think lying is ok.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You TOTALLY don't understand the meaning of truth.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are REALLY just a Pathological Liar, as you have no 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concept of real truth,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The original halt status criteria has the impossible 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> requirement
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that H(D,D) must report on behavior that it does not 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually see.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Requiring H to be clairvoyant is an unreasonable requirement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *The criteria shown below eliminate the requirement of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> clairvoyance*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> input D until
>>>>>>>>>>>>> H correctly determines that its simulated D would never 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> stop running
>>>>>>>>>>>>> unless aborted then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *H correctly simulates its input D until*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Means H does a correct partial simulation of D until H 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> matches the recursive simulation non-halting behavior pattern.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But turning out to be impposible, doesn't make it incorrect 
>>>>>>>>>>>> or invalid.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *You seems to be ridiculously disingenuous about the 
>>>>>>>>>>> self-evident truth*
>>>>>>>>>>> For every possible way that H can be encoded and D(D) calls 
>>>>>>>>>>> H(D,D) either H(D,D) aborts its simulation or D(D) never 
>>>>>>>>>>> stops running.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And you are incredably stupid to not see this doesn't prove 
>>>>>>>>>> what you need it to.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, if you define H to not abort, the we get a non-haltig 
>>>>>>>>>> D(D), but H doesn't answwer.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But, if you define H to abort, then, 
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We see that you changed the subject away from:
>>>>>>>>> [Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> H is an algorithm that simulates its input and correctly
>>>>>>> determines whether or not it needs to abort this simulation.
>>>>>>> That is all that this thread's H does.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> And what defines "Need"?
>>>>>>
>>>>> It is the set of every implementation of its spec:
>>>>> (a) H(D,D) Simulate input.
>>>>> (b) Determine if it needs to stop simulating its input to prevent
>>>>> the simulated D(D) from never halting.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And thus not a specific algorithm?
>>>>
>>>> Again, HOW do you determine NEED?
>>>>
>>>> That is not an algorithmic step.
>>>>
>>>> We can only verify that in retrospect.
>>>
>>> Do you fully understand the spec?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Yes, but I think not the way you do.
>>
>> To me, for H to NEED to abort its simulation, that means that when 
>> giving the input to a correct simulator, that simulator will not halt.
>>
> Yes that is correct.

And THIS input (that used the H that aborts), when given to a correct 
simulator, will reach an end.

Since you just agreed to my definition, you agree that this H didn't 
need to abort.

> 
>> I say this isn't the way you do, as I have shown that H fails to meet 
>> this specification.
>>
> (a) If abort halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H 
> correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running 
> unless aborted then
> 
> This is the way that I do it and you have never shown otherwise.

Nope, you use an H that aborts because it non-aborting brother needed to 
abort the brother of your input

> 
>> You can't seem to actually define it the way you want, likely because 
>> you don't actually understand what you are doing.
>>
> It seems to me that the issue is your persistence in remaining in
> rebuttal mode even when this contradicts the verified facts.

No, you are stuck it trying to call two things that are different as if 
they were the same.

> 
>> This seems clear as your "implementation" isn't actually an 
>> implementation as it includes non-algorithmic steps.
>>
> My C code provably does do this and I can show a TM equivalent.

Nope.

DO IT if you can.

> 
>> There is no "Get the right answer" instruction, or look into the 
>> future (or even look into an alternate future) instruction.
> 
>   machine   stack     stack     machine    assembly
>   address   address   data      code       language
>   ========  ========  ========  =========  =============
> [00001d22][00102fc9][00000000] 55         push ebp
> [00001d23][00102fc9][00000000] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
> [00001d25][00102fc5][00001b32] 68321b0000 push 00001b32 ; push Sipser_D
> [00001d2a][00102fc1][00001b32] 68321b0000 push 00001b32 ; push Sipser_D
> [00001d2f][00102fbd][00001d34] e8eef8ffff call 00001622 ; call Sipser_H
> 
> Sipser_H: Begin Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:113075
> Address_of_Sipser_H:1622
> [00001b32][00113061][00113065] 55         push ebp
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========