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

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