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: Mon, 18 Mar 2024 09:44:22 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 190
Message-ID: <ut9k08$7i77$1@dont-email.me>
References: <ut1sgk$2buev$2@dont-email.me> <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>
 <ut8lhu$27bqa$10@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 14:44:24 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="17ec9398ed80e19bde6326f5400a6c92";
	logging-data="248039"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX195dmPVO6FmN1q3Q0re1X80"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:QSYwZhr0G3PAE1PCUNAn9f+dxW8=
In-Reply-To: <ut8lhu$27bqa$10@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 10346

On 3/18/2024 1:04 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> 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 ==========