Re: Categorically exhaustive reasoning applied to the decision to abort

On 3/27/2024 4:35 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-03-26 14:51:18 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 3/26/2024 3:57 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-03-25 22:50:08 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 3/24/2024 11:42 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-03-24 03:39:12 +0000, olcott said:
>

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 part that this determination must be done by a Turing machine
using descriptions of the program and input is coherent, too.
>

>
Every decider is required by definition to only report on what
this input specifies.

>
Not true.

>
int sum(int x, int y){ return x + y; }
The show how sum(3,4) reports the sum of 5 + 6.

 I needn't show anything as I didn't promise to implement it.
 

If implementing the specification is logically impossible
then that makes it an incorrect question instance.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer