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: Defining a correct simulating halt decider
Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2024 14:27:13 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 96
Message-ID: <vbi9eh$1gbo2$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vb4plc$2tqeg$1@dont-email.me> <vb6o5t$3a95s$1@dont-email.me>
 <vb71a3$3b4ub$4@dont-email.me> <vbbmuc$8nbb$1@dont-email.me>
 <vbcbe4$bdtb$3@dont-email.me>
 <cb6a625f1737dafed130e2bdad14395d95566ba1@i2pn2.org>
 <vbcl61$d8p0$1@dont-email.me>
 <e097e72a4319eb72e8663d055aa54d69af610831@i2pn2.org>
 <vbcnjk$dr54$1@dont-email.me>
 <5d7b0659450f58aec28d4f49b1b59982cedfc694@i2pn2.org>
 <vbcp2d$e330$1@dont-email.me>
 <70a0b7e4bd0a0129649d8e77cdc36339bd74d6a5@i2pn2.org>
 <vbhl0e$1c7u5$6@dont-email.me>
 <4478821a37cfd3f24201caee13e8eb0abfe09c9c@i2pn2.org>
 <vbhpeq$1djl5$1@dont-email.me>
 <2ce63f5729cca1e2a878ee96224e4504ce974957@i2pn2.org>
 <vbhqle$1dpc0$1@dont-email.me>
 <ddd238668be1d2b9e8598893336543864a3b8fef@i2pn2.org>
 <vbhsio$1e1qp$1@dont-email.me>
 <6f80ca08698e36934200fa1e8b134bd8c2b7b181@i2pn2.org>
 <vbhulv$1eco4$1@dont-email.me>
 <d036b5c07a45cf0330892bcef03c4df13c878d90@i2pn2.org>
 <vbi02v$1eis0$1@dont-email.me>
 <fff376f7fcc1d0fd503c4d27135639e85d42bd7d@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2024 21:27:13 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="fc36cd944b9fa7fa30157002795d809b";
	logging-data="1584898"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19UwpXcDfm4axxun1nBTT93"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:MH2dyBInglKiW0puHteMkQAxRrQ=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <fff376f7fcc1d0fd503c4d27135639e85d42bd7d@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 5980

On 9/7/2024 11:53 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 9/7/24 12:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 9/7/2024 11:30 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 9/7/24 12:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 9/7/2024 11:20 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 9/7/24 11:47 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/7/2024 10:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/7/24 11:14 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 9/7/2024 10:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 9/7/24 10:54 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 9/7/2024 9:46 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Am Sat, 07 Sep 2024 08:38:22 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/5/2024 12:22 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Thu, 05 Sep 2024 12:17:01 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/5/2024 11:56 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Thu, 05 Sep 2024 11:52:04 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/5/2024 11:34 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Thu, 05 Sep 2024 11:10:40 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/5/2024 10:57 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Thu, 05 Sep 2024 08:24:20 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/5/2024 2:34 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-09-03 13:00:50 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2024 5:25 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-09-02 16:38:03 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The directly executed HHH correctly determines that its 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emulated DDD
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must be aborted because DDD keeps *THE EMULATED HHH* 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stuck in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recursive emulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why doesn’t the simulated HHH abort?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The first HHH cannot wait for its HHH to abort which is 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> waiting for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its HHH to abort on and on with no HHH ever aborting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But why does HHH halt and return that itself doesn’t halt?
>>>>>>>>>>>> When HHH is waiting for the next HHH which is waiting for 
>>>>>>>>>>>> the next HHH
>>>>>>>>>>>> which is waiting for the next HHH...
>>>>>>>>>>>> we have an infinite chain of waiting and never aborting.
>>>>>>>>>>> Except for the outermost one.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When the outermost HHH is waiting for its emulated HHH
>>>>>>>>>> to abort and this emulated HHH is waiting on its emulated
>>>>>>>>>> HHH to abort on and on forever waiting and none ever abort.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Which only happens if HHH is defined in a way that it never 
>>>>>>>>> aborts this simulaiton, and that HHH isn't a correct decider.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That is NOT what Joes has been proposing.
>>>>>>>> Joes has been proposing that each HHH in the recursive chain
>>>>>>>> can wait until the next one aborts and that the abort will
>>>>>>>> still occur at the end of this infinite chain.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, he is pointing out that get the right answer, each HHH NEEDS 
>>>>>>> to wait for the previous one to get the right answer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But, if to do so, it results in the definition of HHH that just 
>>>>>>> never aborts and thus HHH isn't a decider.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not He, and stupidly waiting forever is stupid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So, what do you think HHH can do to get the right answer,
>>>>
>>>> No dishonestly changing the subject.
>>>> The subject is that Joes is wrong that HHH can wait
>>>> on another HHH to abort.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> But it isn't a changing of the subject!
>>>
>>
>> Can the outermost directly executed HHH wait for an
>> inner one to abort and still terminate normally.
>> (a) YES
>> (b) NO
>>
> 
> No, 

*Therefore this criteria is met*
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
     If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
     until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
     stop running unless aborted then

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