Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott2@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria --self-evident
 truth--limits--
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2024 11:37:09 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 220
Message-ID: <utf3bl$1j44f$3@dont-email.me>
References: <ut1sgk$2buev$2@dont-email.me> <ut2iqa$2gkoj$1@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> <ut8b57$3vipc$1@dont-email.me>
 <ut98cj$547p$1@dont-email.me> <utah5r$e0s4$1@dont-email.me>
 <utbj0a$nvg5$1@dont-email.me> <utcc23$tdtf$1@dont-email.me>
 <utcdld$tqik$1@dont-email.me> <utdjgi$15l3n$1@dont-email.me>
 <ute5u4$1cs77$2@dont-email.me> <uteogj$1g66g$9@dont-email.me>
 <utevmh$1idev$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2024 16:37:09 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="cd243b087f0ff467eeb7e8496efe134c";
	logging-data="1675407"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+gMGEc3vxzrUI3xxkSTYjG"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:smCPBZolp3y4BfFEwB2Mi6GQx9E=
In-Reply-To: <utevmh$1idev$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 11637

On 3/20/2024 10:34 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-03-20 13:32:03 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 3/20/2024 3:15 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-03-20 03:00:33 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 3/19/2024 11:14 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-03-19 15:47:14 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/19/2024 3:39 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-03-18 23:02:18 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2024 6:26 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-03-18 03:07:18 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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 ∀D such that H(D,D) simulates its input and D calls H(D,D)
>>>>>>>>>> H(D,D) does not abort its simulation necessitates simulated D(D)
>>>>>>>>>> never stops running.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You should restrict your H so that any H that simulates D(D) 
>>>>>>>>> forever
>>>>>>>>> is excluded, as simulating forver makes it a non-decider.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I do yet so far everyone says that they believe this is impossible
>>>>>>>> so I have to go back a few steps and prove that it is possible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In logic any well defined expressible condition is allowed, even
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========