Re: Defining a correct simulating halt decider

On 9/7/24 4:55 PM, olcott wrote:

On 9/7/2024 3:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 9/7/24 3:27 PM, olcott wrote:

On 9/7/2024 11:53 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 9/7/24 12:47 PM, olcott wrote:

On 9/7/2024 11:30 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 9/7/24 12:23 PM, olcott wrote:

On 9/7/2024 11:20 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 9/7/24 11:47 AM, olcott wrote:

On 9/7/2024 10:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 9/7/24 11:14 AM, olcott wrote:

On 9/7/2024 10:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 9/7/24 10:54 AM, olcott wrote:

On 9/7/2024 9:46 AM, joes wrote:

Am Sat, 07 Sep 2024 08:38:22 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 9/5/2024 12:22 PM, joes wrote:

Am Thu, 05 Sep 2024 12:17:01 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 9/5/2024 11:56 AM, joes wrote:

Am Thu, 05 Sep 2024 11:52:04 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 9/5/2024 11:34 AM, joes wrote:

Am Thu, 05 Sep 2024 11:10:40 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 9/5/2024 10:57 AM, joes wrote:

Am Thu, 05 Sep 2024 08:24:20 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 9/5/2024 2:34 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-09-03 13:00:50 +0000, olcott said:

On 9/3/2024 5:25 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-09-02 16:38:03 +0000, olcott said:

>

The directly executed HHH correctly determines that its emulated DDD
must be aborted because DDD keeps *THE EMULATED HHH* stuck in
recursive emulation.

Why doesn’t the simulated HHH abort?

The first HHH cannot wait for its HHH to abort which is waiting for
its HHH to abort on and on with no HHH ever aborting.

But why does HHH halt and return that itself doesn’t halt?

When HHH is waiting for the next HHH which is waiting for the next HHH
which is waiting for the next HHH...
we have an infinite chain of waiting and never aborting.

Except for the outermost one.
>

>
When the outermost HHH is waiting for its emulated HHH
to abort and this emulated HHH is waiting on its emulated
HHH to abort on and on forever waiting and none ever abort.
>

>
Which only happens if HHH is defined in a way that it never aborts this simulaiton, and that HHH isn't a correct decider.
>

>
That is NOT what Joes has been proposing.
Joes has been proposing that each HHH in the recursive chain
can wait until the next one aborts and that the abort will
still occur at the end of this infinite chain.
>

>
No, he is pointing out that get the right answer, each HHH NEEDS to wait for the previous one to get the right answer.
>
But, if to do so, it results in the definition of HHH that just never aborts and thus HHH isn't a decider.
>

>
Not He, and stupidly waiting forever is stupid.
>
>

>
So, what do you think HHH can do to get the right answer,

>
No dishonestly changing the subject.
The subject is that Joes is wrong that HHH can wait
on another HHH to abort.
>
>

>
But it isn't a changing of the subject!
>

>
Can the outermost directly executed HHH wait for an
inner one to abort and still terminate normally.
(a) YES
(b) NO
>

>
No,

>
*Therefore this criteria is met*
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
     If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
     until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
     stop running unless aborted then
>

>
Nope, and just proves that you don't understand what you are talking about.
>
Your question was, when HHH is the variable, and the input DDD is defined to be a function of that variable, does HHH need to be an aborting emulator to reach the final state. And there the answer is HHH must be an aborting emulator.
>

 You can see from my quote above that I didn't say anything like that.
 

He siad "its simulated D would never stop running unless aborted".
Take *THIS* D, that is the D that calls the H that you finally decide on, and correctly simulate that. (This is what he means, and the only thing he could have meant).
It will stoo running, since the H it calls *WILL* abort and return 0, as that is what you end up saying it will do.
The difference between this case and the prior is in the qustion to Professor Sipser, D is an *INDEPENDENT* and *FIXED* input, as that is what the domain of the theory works with.
You don't change it when you think about what if this H doesn't abort, as that D will ALWAYS be calling an H that ALWAYS will abort and return, becuase that is what you locked yourself into later when you tried to claim that it used the incorrect application of this rule to justify your incorrectly aborting the simulation.
Note, that the property of "D would never stop running unless aborted" isn't a temporal property, but is a property constant for all time, either the code of D makes it to be a non-halting program, or it makes it a halting program, so you can't say that D wasn't halting until H aborted it, if H's code says that it WILL abort it, then D is halting. (So logic about before/after isn't valid).
So, since ultimately you say that H *WILL* abort (or you couldn't claim it was correct to abort), we can establish that D *WILL* Halt, and thus it is impossible that H "correctly determined" a property that just isn't there.