Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Incorrect requirements --- Computing the mapping from the input
 to HHH(DD)
Date: Sun, 11 May 2025 19:51:27 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 83
Message-ID: <vvrgmf$n9a9$4@dont-email.me>
References: <vv97ft$3fg66$1@dont-email.me>
 <bc4fb153ff914177dba706ce6e0dfb467e2126eb.camel@gmail.com>
 <vvp04i$3r5li$3@dont-email.me>
 <853816e160c7b3fe75c71f0728e72989d9fb2e41.camel@gmail.com>
 <vvp1fm$3r5li$4@dont-email.me>
 <b049926b61baa5d69d11655a8af06e537b7acd71.camel@gmail.com>
 <vvqga9$gldn$3@dont-email.me>
 <41e08841caf0d628beb5105bc78531a412eea440.camel@gmail.com>
 <vvql3p$gldn$15@dont-email.me>
 <cb999b6746607a1445c196e485a2c1124eaee8b5.camel@gmail.com>
 <vvqnev$i5d0$3@dont-email.me>
 <07c4f2302645a7e58957b5e5bffed80397a6ddae.camel@gmail.com>
 <vvr0ot$k9nu$1@dont-email.me>
 <04bd32e2a5572305de0376f9569172932ffb252f.camel@gmail.com>
 <vvr2ov$khl4$2@dont-email.me>
 <72f8c8295d3a0ff265a67b0de838516ade16c6d5.camel@gmail.com>
 <vvr6lj$lieg$1@dont-email.me>
 <8667c45172be6519444525c30d280cde06d77e2b.camel@gmail.com>
 <vvr8dj$lu2b$1@dont-email.me>
 <7281f97665272ea0eb85e56940648f6c807b0b8e.camel@gmail.com>
 <vvralq$me5h$1@dont-email.me>
 <f5a9ca0c0edaeb582b14c3babee27e25d41fc953.camel@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 12 May 2025 02:51:28 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="15cac720ddbb61c7f6586fe023932af8";
	logging-data="763209"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+xyETQowZjh8zPJ6VLvBA+"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:HvJwqHsQWAQqukJurBk9CU+M+Wg=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <f5a9ca0c0edaeb582b14c3babee27e25d41fc953.camel@gmail.com>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250511-4, 5/11/2025), Outbound message

On 5/11/2025 7:33 PM, wij wrote:
> On Sun, 2025-05-11 at 18:08 -0500, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/11/2025 5:50 PM, wij wrote:
>>> On Sun, 2025-05-11 at 17:30 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/11/2025 5:11 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 2025-05-11 at 17:00 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>>> [cut]
>>>>>>>> ZFC corrected the error in set theory so that
>>>>>>>> it could resolve Russell's Paradox. The original
>>>>>>>> set theory has now called naive set theory.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I corrected the error of the HP that expects
>>>>>>>> HHH to report on behavior that is different
>>>>>>>> than the behavior that its input actually
>>>>>>>> specifies.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Specificly, "Halt(D)=1 iff D() halts" is an error?
>>>>>>> And it should expect: Halt(D)=1 iff POOH(D)=1 (correct problem)?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes that is an error because the behavior that
>>>>>> the input to HHH(DDD) specifies is the behavior
>>>>>> that HHH must report on.
>>>>>
>>>>> If so, how do we know a given function e.g. D, halts or not by giving it to H,
>>>>> i.e. H(D)? Wrong question (according to you)?
>>>>
>>>> H and D is too vague and ambiguous.
>>>> We know that the input to HHH(DDD) specifies
>>>> a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>
>>>> We know that the input to HHH1(DDD) specifies
>>>> a halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>
>>>>> Instead, every time we want to know whether D halts or not,
>>>>
>>>> When we intentionally define an input to attempt
>>>> to thwart a specific termination analyzer THIS DOES
>>>> CHANGE THE BEHAVIOR.
>>>>
>>>> If we let people run uploaded programs on our
>>>> network we need to know if these programs are
>>>> going to halt.
>>>>
>>>> Unless HHH(DDD) rejects its input as non-halting
>>>> HHH will continue to eat up network resources.
>>>
>>> But, according to POOH, if D going to eat up network resources, it have to
>>> happen when we run POOH(D), because you said D's halting property only
>>> valid to H.
>>>
>>
>> If we want to prevent this kind of denial of service
>> attack HHH must be able correctly handle inputs that
>> are trying to thwart it or HHH fails.
>>
>> When HHH is our official denial of service attack
>> preventer it either rejects its input DDD as non
>> halting or it gets stuck in recursive emulation
>> thus fails.
>>
>> It always has been the requirement that a termination
>> analyzer was required to report on the behavior that
>> its input actually specifies.
>>
>> This is a subtle nuance of functions computed by
>> models of computation that no one bothered to
>> pay attention to because they didn't know it made
>> any difference.
>>
> 
> Is DDD a virus?
> 

If on a real system an input tried to fool the
denial-of-service-attack detector IT WOULD FAIL.

Prior to my work a denial-of-service-attack detector
WOULD FAIL. It would not know to reject DDD.

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