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) --- DOS detector
Date: Mon, 12 May 2025 10:58:02 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 63
Message-ID: <vvt5qa$14pca$13@dont-email.me>
References: <vv97ft$3fg66$1@dont-email.me> <vvoubl$3qtsi$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$1@dont-email.me> <vvrdlp$mv2a$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvrh1k$n9a9$5@dont-email.me>
 <64f7333f5ec598b196e142b18511238e590252af@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 12 May 2025 17:58:03 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="15cac720ddbb61c7f6586fe023932af8";
	logging-data="1205642"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19z74JoKe41uGijTPD5O4M2"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:1NONDFsbJhFw9errodHSEYMiTOo=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250512-4, 5/12/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <64f7333f5ec598b196e142b18511238e590252af@i2pn2.org>

On 5/12/2025 4:22 AM, joes wrote:
> Am Sun, 11 May 2025 19:57:24 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>> On 5/11/2025 6:59 PM, dbush wrote:
>>> On 5/11/2025 6:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/11/2025 5:11 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 2025-05-11 at 17:00 -0500, olcott wrote:
> 
>>>>>>>> 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.
> No. The input is DDD. DDD halts. HHH doesn't simulate it halting.
> 
>>>>> 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.
> No. Change relative to what?
> 
>>>> If we let people run uploaded programs on our network we need to know
>>>> if these programs are going to halt.
>>>
>>> Which means it will give us the wrong answer for DDD,
>>
>> Not at all. If HHH does not do this then DDD would get the
>> denial-of-service-detector HHH stuck in recursive emulation thus causing
>> denial-of-service.
> No, HHH could abort *and return that DDD halts*. DDD does not cause "DoS"
> in direct execution.
> 
>>> as it will halt when executed directly,
>> What DDD does in theory does not matter when in actual practice DDD gets
>> the denial-of-service-detector HHH stuck in recursive emulation thus
>> causing denial-of-service.
> You're confusing theory and practice. If anything, the direct execution
> is more real than the simulation.
> 

Not when the simulation directly causes a denial-of-service
attack attack to succeed. If an input fools a DOS detector
into thinking that it halts this input has directly caused
a DOS attack to succeed.

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