Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<vvrkfp$mv2a$6@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Incorrect requirements --- Computing the mapping from the input to HHH(DD) Date: Sun, 11 May 2025 21:56:10 -0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 94 Message-ID: <vvrkfp$mv2a$6@dont-email.me> References: <vv97ft$3fg66$1@dont-email.me> <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$1@dont-email.me> <f5a9ca0c0edaeb582b14c3babee27e25d41fc953.camel@gmail.com> <vvrgmf$n9a9$4@dont-email.me> <d3eedafd84b780cdb0bd63c8afd0aa92209136ab@i2pn2.org> <vvrk67$o2ab$2@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Mon, 12 May 2025 03:56:10 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d587ba6f088c47ed8fd2ad250ebfd646"; logging-data="752714"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18CfBMrWR7wicV3lZS5eSfr" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:wrFcmygpYnsJH2GwDy07FPc2kQs= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <vvrk67$o2ab$2@dont-email.me> On 5/11/2025 9:51 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/11/2025 8:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 5/11/25 8:51 PM, olcott wrote: >>> 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. >>> >> >> But DDD doesn't do a denial of service, so it is a false positive. >> > > When HHH is a denial-of-service-detector Then it is not a halt decider / termination analyzer, and therefore irrelevant to the halting problem.