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: Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria --self-evident truth--
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2024 22:14:58 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 138
Message-ID: <ut8bji$3vipc$3@dont-email.me>
References: <ut1sgk$2buev$2@dont-email.me> <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>
 <ut79og$3knkh$6@dont-email.me> <ut7u85$3peut$3@dont-email.me>
 <ut899e$27bqa$4@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2024 03:14:58 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="17ec9398ed80e19bde6326f5400a6c92";
	logging-data="4180780"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19zivZTUN1+kIX1NRbNlgKY"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:B9Vs0k5sxRAN0OdR6Ak4rN3EJwo=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <ut899e$27bqa$4@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 7302

On 3/17/2024 9:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/17/24 4:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/17/2024 12:37 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 17/03/24 14:11, 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.
>>>
>>> You have just proven that H doesn't need abort its simulation and the 
>>> abort decision is incorrect.
>>
>> The head games of a Troll.
>>
>> 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.
>>
> 
> Which prove NOTHING, as D varies with H, so no D that was built with an 
> H that aborts its simulation has had its actual halting status tested.

*That merely changes the wording of the same truism*
∀H ∈ TM ∀D ∈ TMD such that
H(D,D) simulates its input and
D calls H(D,D) and
H(D,D) does not abort its simulation
necessitates simulated D(D) never stops running.


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