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 --induction criteria--
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2024 13:35:15 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 138
Message-ID: <utfa95$1l0lp$1@dont-email.me>
References: <ut1sgk$2buev$2@dont-email.me> <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>
 <utb40e$2be23$1@i2pn2.org> <utb4pf$lati$1@dont-email.me>
 <utciqf$uvmo$1@dont-email.me> <utcklk$v0lj$7@dont-email.me>
 <utf1so$2gfo0$1@i2pn2.org> <utf2sl$1j44f$1@dont-email.me>
 <utf907$2gfnv$3@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2024 18:35:17 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="cd243b087f0ff467eeb7e8496efe134c";
	logging-data="1737401"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX184KSkGc6fN4A9buO9uJHIT"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:LtoJbtz62aP1YrlYorIJ+2ZUh5M=
In-Reply-To: <utf907$2gfnv$3@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6871

On 3/20/2024 1:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/20/24 12:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/20/2024 11:12 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/19/24 2:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/19/2024 12:42 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 19/03/24 05:37, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> You are just getting nutty now. You are tossing out the sequence, 
>>>>>> selection, iteration model of computation.
>>>>>
>>>>> aren't you tossing out the turing machine model of computation?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am only tossing out the halting problem specification.
>>>> I am not saying (like Richard is saying) that sequential
>>>> code can be executed out-of-sequence.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Just more of your lies.
>>>
>>> Where did I say "Sequential Code" can run out-of-sequence.
>>>
>>>
>>> THe codes that I talk about not being in the sequence you think are 
>>> two INDEPENDENT copies of the machines.
>>>
>>
>> The one that is called first is executed first.
> 
> And I never denied that.
> 
> But H(D,D) doesn't "Call" D(D), it simulates it.
> 

Thus the steps of D(D) simulated by H come after H(D,D)
is executed, they do not occur in parallel at the same time.

> The D(D) that it simulates is a machine that has already been "run", 
> since Turing Machines are FULL computation devices that run their 
> procesisng as soon as they are created.
> 

In some strawman deception argument the steps of D(D) come
before H(D,D) is executed.

> This seems something you don't understand, because you seem to think 
> that D(D) doesn't actually "run" until it is simulated.
> 

The steps of the simulated D(D) are never run, they are only simulated.
In a strawman deception argument the steps of D(D) are executed before
the steps of H(D,D).

>>
>>> The H that is deciding the D(D) does not enforce that the ACTUAL D(D) 
>>> it is simulating has not been run yet, and in fact, since we can 
>>> consider Turing Machines to "auto-start" once created, it is 
>>> IMPOSSIBLE to give to H a description of a D(D) that has not already 
>>> run itself.
>>>
>> The one that is called first is executed first.
> 
> So?
> 

You tried to get away with saying otherwise.

> Where does H call D(D)? It SIMULATES it.
> 
> You seem to think that simulation is the exact same thing as EXECUTION.
> 
>>
>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn   // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
>>
>> Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is executed before Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ thus the executed Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is
>> run before the simulated one. When Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulates its input
>> it can see that it must abort this simulation.
> 
> Yes H^ (H^) is executed before H^.H (H^) (H^) but the instance of the 
> machine represented by that input was executed when it was created, so 
> has already run.
> 
Unless you are trying to get away with rejecting the sequence of
sequence, selection, iteration you already know that Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is always
executed before Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.

> Again, you are confusing the simulation that H, or H^.H does, with the 
> axtual execution of them.
> 
> You could even look at the simulation of H^.H as telling H part of what 
> this H^ (H^) has alteady done.
> 
> 
>>
>>> We, as finite humans may not know what it did, but the mathematical 
>>> world of truth does.
>>>
>>
>> Mathematical induction proves that after N steps of correct simulation
>> H correctly determines that ∞ steps of correct simulation would never
>> halt. *These are verified facts that you perpetually deny*
> 
> NOPE.
> 
> STATE YOUR INDUCTION CRITERIA and their proof
> 

As soon as H(D,D) sees that D calls itself with its same inputs
and there are no conditional branch instructions from the
beginning of D to its call to H(D,D) then H knows that its
simulated D(D) cannot possibly reach its own final instruction
(at line 06) in any finite number of steps of correct simulation.

>>
>> At least you finally understand how H(D,D) != H1(D,D) after two
>> years of failing to examine my proof that I was correct all along.
> 
> Only because you finally admitted that H1 was a different computation, 
> and thus represent a different Turing Machine than H.
> 

You simply refused to look at the one page proof that I was correct
all along. At the time I thought that you had looked at it and simply
denied the easily verified facts. At the time this reasonable assumption
did justify me calling you a liar.

>>
>>> You can't seem to comprehend that world, because you seem to like to 
>>> live in your world of LIES.
>>
> 

In retrospect is looks like neither one of us are liars.

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer