Path: ...!news.nobody.at!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: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- key error
 in all the proofs
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2024 08:16:24 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 312
Message-ID: <v9d1v8$3a9pe$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v8jh7m$30k55$1@dont-email.me> <v98hpa$t1hv$1@dont-email.me>
 <2fee2a47a11178b8ec9089878a51aa7ccb410fc2@i2pn2.org>
 <v98j19$taas$1@dont-email.me>
 <e594b5b47303846026e79ab95d1ba6b528ba6267@i2pn2.org>
 <v98leq$tna8$1@dont-email.me>
 <f2715e52691fec808c2ae5953e65fb42f4e19fa9@i2pn2.org>
 <v98mj9$tunr$1@dont-email.me>
 <86cbe5924d3495f56986483f79567af3e6efde8a@i2pn2.org>
 <v98qbj$ul50$1@dont-email.me>
 <49e9799be11c5e626bc05a421227bb7563982f0d@i2pn2.org>
 <v98uf7$vepo$1@dont-email.me>
 <60f1a533219c1237071f358999228eb48727f5e9@i2pn2.org>
 <v991tu$vepo$2@dont-email.me>
 <895f5e9b934bbfb72925fb109043500d49100a6a@i2pn2.org>
 <v994vs$10cfm$1@dont-email.me>
 <dec62801011bc5bf0b9eb9a62c607cf407198609@i2pn2.org>
 <v99870$14mlk$1@dont-email.me>
 <0f8f134fe961ee00910cce1d7f05b632d7567c6c@i2pn2.org>
 <v9abfu$2nabt$1@dont-email.me>
 <86c21e8a63450bf8b0c32f4f17ba0b503a914fe0@i2pn2.org>
 <v9d01i$39tbd$2@dont-email.me>
 <2c853efb65c3d8e2d4ba1c484f7002c74c68d895@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2024 15:16:25 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0de40597f43653f20eea109a93bb850d";
	logging-data="3483438"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/vpvU5dGK7z2Tp0aQWhhTU"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:1V4MfZJmF2lzK51d3id6+2cG62U=
In-Reply-To: <2c853efb65c3d8e2d4ba1c484f7002c74c68d895@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 16026

On 8/12/2024 8:04 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 8/12/24 8:43 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 8/11/2024 12:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 8/11/24 8:40 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 8/11/2024 6:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 8/10/24 10:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/10/2024 9:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/10/24 9:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/10/2024 8:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 8/10/24 8:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/10/2024 7:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/10/24 7:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/10/2024 5:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/10/24 6:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/10/2024 4:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/10/24 5:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/10/2024 4:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/10/24 5:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/10/2024 3:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/10/24 4:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I have countlessly proven it only requires enough 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emulated steps to correctly infer that the input 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach is "return" instruction halt state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Except that HHH does't do that, since if HHH decides 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to abort and return, then the DDD that it is 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emulating WILL return, just after HHH has stopped its 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You just confuse the behavior of DDD with the PARTIAL 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emulation that HHH does, because you lie about your 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false "tautology".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Denying a tautology seems to make you a liar. I only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say "seems to" because I know that I am fallible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Claiming a false statement is a tautology only make 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you a liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In this case, you lie is that the HHH that you are 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about do the "correct emulation" you base you 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim on.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is just a deception like the devil uses, has 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just a hint of truth, but the core is a lie.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What I say is provably correct on the basis of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics of the x86 language.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The x86 language says DDD will Halt if HHH(DDD) returns 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a value.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH is called by main() there is no directly executed DDD()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any where in the whole computation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Except in your requirements, and we can see what it does 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by adding a call to DDD from main, since nothing in your 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system calls main.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All that you need to know is that there is not any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> directly executed DDD() anywhere in the computation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But there ccould be, and the behavior of it is what matters.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The key error of the halting problem proofs all of these
>>>>>>>>>>>> years has been the false assumption that a halt decider
>>>>>>>>>>>> must report on the behavior of the computation that itself
>>>>>>>>>>>> is contained within.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But it isn't a false assemption, but an actual requirement.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A Halt Decider must be able to correctly answer for ANY 
>>>>>>>>>>> Turing Machine represented as its input.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ANY includes those that are built from a copy of itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So, a Halt Decider needs to be able to correctly answer about 
>>>>>>>>>>> programs that include copies of itself, even with contrary 
>>>>>>>>>>> behavior, which is what makes it impossible to compute.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You seem to confuse non-computable with invalid, it seems in 
>>>>>>>>>>> part because you don't understand the difference between 
>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge and truth.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Everyone has simply assumed that the behavior of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> input to a decider must exactly match the direct execution
>>>>>>>>>>>> of this input. They only did this because everyone rejected
>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation out-of-hand without review.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Because that is the DEFINITION of what it is to decide on.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You just don't understand what a requirement is.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Since the DEFINITION of "Correct Simulation" that you are 
>>>>>>>>>>> trying to use (from a UTM) means a machine the EXACTLY 
>>>>>>>>>>> reproduces the behavior of the direct exectution of the 
>>>>>>>>>>> machine described by the input, the correct simulation must 
>>>>>>>>>>> exactly match the behavior of the direct execution.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You can't get out of it by trying to lie about it being 
>>>>>>>>>>> different.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This caused them to never notice that the input simulated
>>>>>>>>>>>> according to its correct semantics does call its own decider
>>>>>>>>>>>> in recursive simulation thus cannot possibly return to its
>>>>>>>>>>>> caller. The Linz proof is sufficiently isomorphic so this 
>>>>>>>>>>>> equally
>>>>>>>>>>>> applies to the Linz TM proof.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, just shows you don't know what "Correct" means.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Your proof is NOT "sufficiently isomorphic" since by your own 
>>>>>>>>>>> claims it is clearly not even Turing Complete, so no where 
>>>>>>>>>>> near isomorphic.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If HHH were to report on the direct execution of DDD it would
>>>>>>>>>>>> be breaking the definition of a halt decider that only computes
>>>>>>>>>>>> the mapping from its input...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. Since the mapping that it is supposed to compute is 
>>>>>>>>>>> DEFINED as based on the direct exectut
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No it never has been this. I has always been a mapping
>>>>>>>>>> from the behavior that the finite string specifies. It
>>>>>>>>>> has never been the behavior of the actual computation
>>>>>>>>>> that the decider is contained within.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And thatg behavior is specified to be the behavior of the 
>>>>>>>>> program the input represents. PERIOD.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That has never been true. It is always the case that every
>>>>>>>> decider of any kind only computes the mapping from its input
>>>>>>>> finite string and never gives a rat's ass about anything else
>>>>>>>> anywhere else.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, you are confusing capability with requirements.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A "Foo Decider" has ALWAYS been required to compute the "Foo" 
>>>>>>> mapping, as that mapping is defined.
>>>>>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========