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 11:42:00 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 407
Message-ID: <v9de0o$3cjse$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v8jh7m$30k55$1@dont-email.me> <v98leq$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>
 <v9d1v8$3a9pe$1@dont-email.me>
 <e614d6b981fd5fa6eefc84894a14448d4663e3c7@i2pn2.org>
 <v9da2d$3bth4$1@dont-email.me>
 <64ddeeaa3a55a9e410de599bd8df53d3644ee5a3@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 18:42:01 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0de40597f43653f20eea109a93bb850d";
	logging-data="3559310"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/xdNPFmerQ94mNSYL6FB6j"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Kfxuu3o71Y0uH44iKb40vYPc1/Q=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <64ddeeaa3a55a9e410de599bd8df53d3644ee5a3@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 21047

On 8/12/2024 11:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 8/12/24 11:34 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 8/12/2024 10:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 8/12/24 9:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========