Re: Categorically exhaustive reasoning applied to the decision to abort

On 3/23/2024 9:54 PM, immibis wrote:

On 24/03/24 03:40, olcott wrote:

On 3/23/2024 9:34 PM, immibis wrote:

On 24/03/24 03:15, olcott wrote:

On 3/23/2024 8:40 PM, immibis wrote:

On 24/03/24 00:29, olcott wrote:

On 3/23/2024 5:58 PM, immibis wrote:

On 23/03/24 16:02, olcott wrote:

(b) H(D,D) that DOES abort its simulation is correct
     (ABOUT THIS ABORT DECISION)
     because it would halt and all deciders must always halt.

>
To be a decider it has to give an answer.
>
To be a halt decider it has to give an answer that is the same as whether the direct execution of its input would halt.

>
That would entail that

>
Tough shit. That is the requirement.

>
I proved otherwise in the parts you erased.

>
You proved that the requirement is not actually the requirement?

>
I proved that it cannot be a coherent requirement, it can still
be an incoherent requirement. Try and think it through for yourself.

 Every program/input pair either halts some time, or never halts.
Determining this is a coherent requirement.

That part is coherent. The many other details that are
not coherent could have never been discovered without
actually encoding them in fully operational code that
proves that some assumptions are false.
Prior to x86utm the answer to the halt status of the pathological
input was no one has any idea at all.
After the innovation of the x86utm operating system we can clearly
see that the input to H(D,D) is non-halting from the point of view of H.
*This is the part where honest and competent reviewers would agree*
How this pertains to the actual halting problem may have room for
differing opinions without error or deception.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer