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 15:41:16 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 258
Message-ID: <uta8tc$c91o$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> <uta8i3$2af33$1@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 20:41:16 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="17ec9398ed80e19bde6326f5400a6c92";
	logging-data="402488"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18nFBWFKYAw6b8dPJG3+fnR"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:evPlYTfTs5PXnjddXrIPLJtOJ+Q=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <uta8i3$2af33$1@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 14505

On 3/18/2024 3:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/18/24 12:39 PM, 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*
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========