Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2024 08:34:40 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 67 Message-ID: References: <23cb2d2401b87bf4f6a604aa1a78b93ffc9a29bc@i2pn2.org> <3fc6548531f91ed14a27420caf9679a634573ed0@i2pn2.org> <8a6e6d9ff49aabe2525ce5729a439c807de4768a@i2pn2.org> <34Ocnd4voeWlDAn7nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> <056325e336f81a50f4fb9e60f90934eaac823d22@i2pn2.org> <210383b2ee318f68a96d94aec314ee8b93f79b7f@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2024 15:34:41 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9ab67b95e26d71c9bf3d4bab69c0e6c7"; logging-data="123131"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+Pz/RTCpcl1a9TlrILLjvR" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:QXT1CkV0nKR5bWMFb/HxzAHYjfY= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 4653 On 7/21/2024 4:34 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2024-07-20 13:11:03 +0000, olcott said: > >> On 7/20/2024 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 2024-07-19 14:08:24 +0000, olcott said: >>> >>>> When we use your incorrect reasoning we would conclude >>>> that Infinite_Loop() is not an infinite loop because it >>>> only repeats until aborted and is aborted. >>> >>> You and your HHH can reason or at least conclude correctly about >>> Infinite_Loop but not about DDD. Possibly because it prefers to >>> say "no", which is correct about Infinte_loop but not about DDD. >>> >> >> *Because this is true I don't understand how you are not simply lying* >> int main >> { >>    DDD(); >> } >> >> Calls HHH(DDD) that must abort the emulation of its input >> or {HHH, emulated DDD and executed DDD} never stop running. > > You are the lying one. > > If HHH(DDD) abrots its simulation and returns true it is correct as a > halt decider for DDD really halts. > (b) We know that a decider is not allowed to report on the behavior computation that itself is contained within. Deciders only take finite string inputs. They do not take executing processes as inputs. Thus HHH is not allowed to report on the behavior of this int main() { DDD(); }. Even the Linz proof makes this same mistake When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn Although embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ cannot possibly correctly report on its own behavior because its input does the opposite of whatever it reports embedded_H is only allowed to report on the behavior that its input specifies. Turing machines never take actual Turing machines as inputs. They only take finite strings as inputs and an actual executing Turing machine is not itself a finite string. 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 H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. Since we ourselves can directly see that UTM based embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ must abort the simulation of its input otherwise this input would never stop running we know that the criteria have been met. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer