Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2

On 7/13/24 11:34 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/13/2024 10:25 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/13/24 11:15 AM, olcott wrote:

>
In other words when you are very hungry you have the
free will to decide that you are not hungry at all
and never eat anything ever again with no ill effects
to your health what-so-ever.
>

>
Just shows that though I have free will, I am also in a Universe with a lot of determinism.
>

Try and use this free will to make a square circle.

>
Nope, just shows you don't know what you are talking about and need to switch to Red Herring because you lost the argument.
>
Face it, all you have proved is that you are nothing but a pathetic ignorant pathological lying idiot.

>

>
After HHH has already aborted its simulation of DDD
and returns to the DDD that called it is not the same
behavior as DDD simulated by HHH that must be aborted.
>

>
Right, and the question is about the behavior of DDD,

>
the input finite string not an external process that HHH
has no access to.
>

>
Right, but the program it represents, and the question is about IS.
>

 HHH cannot be correctly required to report on the behavior
of an external process that it has no access to.
 

But it has access to the complete representation of it.
That is all that is needed.
You just don't understand the essential nature of how logic works.

As soon as HHH correctly determines that it must abort the
simulation of its input to prevent its own infinite execution
HHH is necessarily correct to reject this finite string as
specifying non-halting behavior.
 

But it doesn't ever do that.
It determines that some other HHH with some other version of the input DDD doesn't halt.
Any HHH that aborts, does so because it reached the point it was programmed to do so. The PROGRAMMER is the one that needs to decide on the algorithm to correctly determine that condition, which there, unfortunately for you since you decided to take that job, doesn't exist.
When you design HHH, you need to think about EVERY possible input, since that is what the problem statement says, INCLUDING inputs that happen to be based on you. Because of that, everytime you make change in your design based on the behavior of one input, the "pathological" input you need to handle changes. This ability of pathological relationships, and the fact that you need to be designing a causal program means that you have yourself stuck in a corner. The program that the input represents is a fixed program once we get to that point, and thus when you argue about "NO HHH" can get this input right, you are wrong, as version that run longer on THIS input, based on this HHH will reach the final state and show this NHH was wrong, but those HHHs also have a DDD that was based on them that they will get wrong.
Bsically, you are looking at your infinite set wrong, HHH can't justify its behavior based on the actions of a DIFFERENT input, but you logic tries to do that.