Path: ...!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: key error in all the proofs --- Correction of Fred
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2024 08:42:47 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 89
Message-ID: <v9q9cn$1tedb$5@dont-email.me>
References: <v8jh7m$30k55$1@dont-email.me> <v9da2d$3bth4$1@dont-email.me>
 <64ddeeaa3a55a9e410de599bd8df53d3644ee5a3@i2pn2.org>
 <v9de0o$3cjse$1@dont-email.me> <v9dela$3cjse$2@dont-email.me>
 <b7c45ea22cb83908c31d909b67f4921156be52e3@i2pn2.org>
 <v9dgvl$3d1an$1@dont-email.me>
 <d289636b1d244acaf00108f46df093a9fd5aa27c@i2pn2.org>
 <v9dk2j$3dp9h$1@dont-email.me>
 <8318f5969aa3074e542747fe6ba2916d7f599bde@i2pn2.org>
 <TyKdnc3hCNvmUyf7nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <v9ekta$3necg$1@dont-email.me>
 <2f8c1b0943d03743fe9894937092bc2832e0a029@i2pn2.org>
 <v9fn50$3ta4u$2@dont-email.me> <v9hmfc$c71c$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9ic89$f16v$6@dont-email.me>
 <06ea0f3a1ff938643b3dfefdf62af15559593733@i2pn2.org>
 <v9iqgc$go4j$2@dont-email.me>
 <LcucnRYb5ZiYhyD7nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <v9j6ci$jo32$1@dont-email.me> <v9kdp9$srkm$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9ku3k$v95g$1@dont-email.me> <v9nbqr$1dmui$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9nf3o$1dvef$3@dont-email.me>
 <3d3f69e0a19984a9f3cbe978667536a576057f21@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2024 15:42:48 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5c4a0c817977c3965e873c4f304e2b88";
	logging-data="2013611"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+rAnrzr0sL74JfJnzWpgGo"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:qaoPKeU3DlU3Zh/tL9jBv44RlKA=
In-Reply-To: <3d3f69e0a19984a9f3cbe978667536a576057f21@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6033

On 8/17/2024 6:49 AM, joes wrote:
> Am Fri, 16 Aug 2024 07:02:00 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>> On 8/16/2024 6:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-08-15 12:59:30 +0000, olcott said:
>>>> On 8/15/2024 3:20 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>> Op 14.aug.2024 om 23:08 schreef olcott:
>>>>>> On 8/14/2024 3:56 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>> On 14/08/2024 18:45, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2024 11:31 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Am Wed, 14 Aug 2024 08:42:33 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2024 2:30 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-08-13 13:30:08 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/13/2024 6:23 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/12/24 11:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *DDD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *own "return" instruction final halt state, thus never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halts*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which is only correct if HHH actuallly does a complete and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct emulation, or the behavior DDD (but not the emulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of DDD by HHH)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> will reach that return.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> A complete emulation of a non-terminating input has always
>>>>>>>>>>>> been a contradiction in terms.
>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH correctly predicts that a correct and unlimited emulation
>>>>>>>>>>>> of DDD by HHH cannot possibly reach its own "return"
>>>>>>>>>>>> instruction final halt state.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That is not a meaningful prediction because a complete and
>>>>>>>>>>> unlimited emulation of DDD by HHH never happens.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A complete emulation is not required to correctly predict that a
>>>>>>>>>> complete emulation would never halt.
>>>>>>>>> What do we care about a complete simulation? HHH isn't doing one.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please go read how Mike corrected you.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lol, dude...  I mentioned nothing about complete/incomplete
>>>>>>> simulations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> *You corrected Joes most persistent error*
>>>>>> She made sure to ignore this correction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But while we're here - a complete simulation of input D() would
>>>>>>> clearly halt.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A complete simulation *by HHH* remains stuck in infinite recursion
>>>>>> until aborted.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is aborted, so the infinite recursion is just a dream.
>>>>
>>>> All simulating termination analyzers are required to predict what the
>>>> behavior would be when the emulation is unlimited (never aborted)
>>>> otherwise they could never report on the behavior of this function:
>>>> void Infinite_Loop()
>>>> {
>>>>     HERE: goto HERE;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> Also something that you consistently ignore is that HHH is not
>>>> reporting on its own behavior. HHH is only predicting whether or not
>>>> an unlimited emulation of DDD would reach the "return" instruction of
>>>> DDD.
> Yes it is, as part of DDD (being called by it). An unlimited simulation
> of DDD calling an aborting HHH would halt, see my trace.
> 
>>> Actually HHH does not report at all. HHH just returns one value for
>>> some inputs and another vaule for other inputs. HHH does not tell how
>>> those values correlate with any features of the input. It is the user's
>>> problem to interprete the inputs. The author of the program should tell
>>> what the inputs mean but the user should be aware that the infromation
>>> given by the author may be incorrect. The author has not proven
>>> anything abut the interpretation of the answers by HHH.
>> I must go one step at a time.
>> So far most people have not understood the first step.
>> What correct simulation is and how it is correctly measured.
> In this recursion(!), changing the simulator also changes the simulated.
> 

Please see my new post. I do not have the time to
deal with any less precise specification.
[Anyone that disagrees with this is not telling the truth]


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