Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: immibis <news@immibis.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 21:30:27 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 240
Message-ID: <uta893$c3ln$2@dont-email.me>
References: <ut1sgk$2buev$2@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>
 <RO2dnQlg9_eM82X4nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <ut9ukc$9qc8$3@dont-email.me> <ut9vs3$28gon$3@i2pn2.org>
 <uta58p$baks$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2024 20:30:27 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3186072cd1c8859ef1585ea72fc8bb8a";
	logging-data="396983"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/ezxr93LlrOG92odT/oTlX"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:uSyRaPDZRTmoiJRigWA314hi/X0=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <uta58p$baks$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 13498

On 18/03/24 20:39, olcott wrote:
> On 3/18/2024 1:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/18/24 10:45 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/18/2024 11:38 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>> On 18/03/2024 15:11, 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))
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========