Path: ...!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: Mon, 18 Mar 2024 09:08:38 -0700
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <ut9ou7$28gom$1@i2pn2.org>
References: <ut1sgk$2buev$2@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>
 <ut9k08$7i77$1@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 16:08:39 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2376470"; 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: <ut9k08$7i77$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 12194
Lines: 235

On 3/18/24 7:44 AM, olcott wrote:
> 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 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========