Path: ...!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!us1.netnews.com!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 21:23:39 -0700
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <utb40e$2be23$1@i2pn2.org>
References: <ut1sgk$2buev$2@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$2@dont-email.me> <uta5j7$b8d6$1@dont-email.me>
 <uta7n9$c11s$1@dont-email.me> <uta88f$c3ln$1@dont-email.me>
 <uta8rr$c91o$1@dont-email.me> <utaam1$ckrm$1@dont-email.me>
 <utab3j$cn6l$2@dont-email.me> <utac8g$csl0$1@dont-email.me>
 <utacqt$d328$1@dont-email.me> <utau6c$2b09e$10@i2pn2.org>
 <utb28m$ksn2$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 04:23:42 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2472003"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <utb28m$ksn2$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 21858
Lines: 420

On 3/18/24 8:53 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/18/2024 9:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/18/24 2:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/18/2024 4:38 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 18.mrt.2024 om 22:18 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 3/18/2024 4:11 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 18.mrt.2024 om 21:40 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>> On 3/18/2024 3:30 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 18/03/24 21:20, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2024 2:44 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 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)
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========