Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria --self-evident truth--
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2024 20:44:38 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 216
Message-ID: <uta5j7$b8d6$1@dont-email.me>
References: <ut1sgk$2buev$2@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> <ut9li5$7pdg$1@dont-email.me>
 <ut9ufd$9qc8$2@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 19:44:39 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="79a01d64b130902925d76139ea53675c";
	logging-data="369062"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/tdoXzLvFZJq107sgV5giu"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:AGf1zooZr4PNgZKGFipTGbWXR+0=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <ut9ufd$9qc8$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 11904

Op 18.mrt.2024 om 18:43 schreef olcott:
> On 3/18/2024 10:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 18.mrt.2024 om 15:44 schreef olcott:
>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========