Path: ...!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!us1.netnews.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 23:04:46 -0700
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <ut8lhu$27bqa$10@i2pn2.org>
References: <ut1sgk$2buev$2@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>
 <ut8bji$3vipc$3@dont-email.me> <ut8cju$27bqa$8@i2pn2.org>
 <ut8e9k$8nr$1@dont-email.me> <ut8gic$27bqb$9@i2pn2.org>
 <ut8go9$l2l$2@dont-email.me> <ut8ide$27bqb$10@i2pn2.org>
 <ut8j23$t3b$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2024 06:04:47 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2338634"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <ut8j23$t3b$3@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 11730
Lines: 231

On 3/17/24 10:22 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/18/2024 12:11 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/17/24 9:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/17/2024 11:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/17/24 9:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/17/2024 10:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/17/24 8:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Third times and still not a charm.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All those D still use an H that doesn't abort 
>>>>>
>>>>> *You keep talking in circles, there are only two sets*
>>>>> ∀H ∈ TM ∀D ∈ TMD | (H(D,D) simulates its input and D calls H(D,D))
>>>>> (1) H(D,D) does not abort its simulation then simulated D(D) never 
>>>>> stops running.
>>>>> (2) H(D,D) aborts its simulation then simulated D(D) stops running.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And your top line says NOTHING about the Ds in set (2), since 
>>>> nothing showed them not to run
>>>>
>>>> but your (2) admitts that D(D) will stop running, and thus the top 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========