Re: Incorrect requirements --- Computing the mapping from the input to HHH(DD)

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.