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

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:
[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.

>
Which means it will give us the wrong answer for DDD,

 Not at all. If HHH does not do this