Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Infinite set of HHH/DDD pairs --- truisms
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2024 16:36:24 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 73
Message-ID: <v7mjco$qr0g$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v644pn$29t4h$3@dont-email.me> <v6qn6k$2ubkt$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6r9q1$30qtt$5@dont-email.me> <v6tbge$3gegs$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6tqlm$3imib$5@dont-email.me> <v6vvid$24jd$1@dont-email.me>
 <v70mih$61d8$3@dont-email.me> <v72i9m$jne3$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7367p$mjis$8@dont-email.me> <v755m4$15kf6$1@dont-email.me>
 <v75vl9$19j7l$7@dont-email.me> <v77p77$1nm3r$1@dont-email.me>
 <v78fa7$1rc43$2@dont-email.me> <v7agsg$2am9u$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7b4l2$2e2aq$2@dont-email.me> <v7d9el$2tp5s$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7dtqt$30pvh$6@dont-email.me> <v7fu0f$3ff7c$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7ge24$3hlc2$4@dont-email.me> <v7ikut$1l1s$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7j3mp$3o7r$4@dont-email.me> <v7l3kg$ifhl$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7lped$luh0$2@dont-email.me>
 <bc974139b83c0d9c3a42faeb83bb81ff27ed3547@i2pn2.org>
 <v7lskj$luh0$6@dont-email.me> <v7m5sj$ogs3$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7m8hp$p0um$1@dont-email.me> <v7mc0r$pfs5$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7mdj1$pi02$2@dont-email.me>
 <14d876a6d6debca518bdbdf0f638263776d9901c@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2024 23:36:25 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9aaf30c8a38b34dfe54399611020f1ec";
	logging-data="879632"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18JY2sQGsKj1ueuu6DSHGBm"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:wCiPbTkfn2kW+h2XKVBsgAYKL14=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <14d876a6d6debca518bdbdf0f638263776d9901c@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 5422

On 7/22/2024 4:19 PM, joes wrote:
> Am Mon, 22 Jul 2024 14:57:21 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>> On 7/22/2024 2:30 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 22.jul.2024 om 20:31 schreef olcott:
>>>> On 7/22/2024 12:45 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>> Op 22.jul.2024 om 17:08 schreef olcott:
>>>>>> On 7/22/2024 9:32 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>> Am Mon, 22 Jul 2024 09:13:33 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>> On 7/22/2024 3:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-07-21 13:50:17 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/21/2024 4:38 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-07-20 13:28:36 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/20/2024 3:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-07-19 14:39:25 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/19/2024 3:51 AM, Mikko wrote:
> 
>>>>>>>>>> Then DDD correctly simulated by any pure function HHH cannot
>>>>>>>>>> possibly reach its own return instruction and halt, therefore
>>>>>>>>>> every HHH is correct to reject its DDD as non-halting.
>>>>>>>>> That does not follow. It is never correct to reject a halting
>>>>>>>>> comoputation as non-halting.
>>>>>>>> In each of the above instances DDD never reaches its return
>>>>>>>> instruction and halts. This proves that HHH is correct to report
>>>>>>>> that its DDD never halts.
>>>>>>> It can't return if the simulation of it is aborted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Within the hypothetical scenario where DDD is correctly emulated
>>>>>>>> by its HHH and this HHH never aborts its simulation neither DDD
>>>>>>>> nor HHH ever stops running.
>>>>>>> In actuality HHH DOES abort simulating.
> 
>>>>>>>> This conclusively proves that HHH is required to abort the
>>>>>>>> simulation of its corresponding DDD as required by the design spec
>>>>>>>> that every partial halt decider must halt and is otherwise not any
>>>>>>>> kind of decider at all.
>>>>>>> Like Fred recognised a while ago, you are arguing as if HHH didn't
>>>>>>> abort.
> 
>>>>>> I am talking about hypothetical possible ways that HHH could be
>>>>>> encoded.
>>>>>> (a) HHH(DDD) is encoded to abort its simulation.
>>>>>> (b) HHH(DDD) is encoded to never abort its simulation.
>>>>>> Therefore (a) is correct and (b) is incorrect according to the
>>>>>> design requirements for HHH that it must halt.
>>>>>
>>>>> Both are incorrect. An HHH, when encoded to abort does not need to be
>>>>> aborted when simulated, because it already halts on its own.
>>>>
>>>> You must have attention deficit disorder.
> Please no ableism.
>>>> (a) At least one HHH aborts.
>>>> (b) No HHH ever aborts.
>>>> Every X has property Y or not, there is no inbetween.
>>>
>>> Do you have difficulty reading and writing English?
>>> If every X has property Y or not, then it is clear that every HHH abort
>>> or not.
> 
>> If the first HHH waits on the second HHH and the second waits on the
>> third... Then no HHH ever aborts.
> Yes, exactly. That's one half of the contradiction. The other half:
> When all of them abort, all of them are wrong to do so, because
> what they are simulating also aborts, making the abort unnecessary.
> 

If no HHH ever aborts its simulation then no HHH ever halts.
This proves that some HHH must abort its simulation and that
its corresponding DDD specifies non-halting behavior.

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