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

On 5/11/2025 5:11 PM, wij wrote:

On Sun, 2025-05-11 at 17:00 -0500, olcott wrote:
[cut]

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.

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.
If we let people run uploaded programs on our
network we need to know if these programs are
going to halt.
Unless HHH(DDD) rejects its input as non-halting
HHH will continue to eat up network resources.
We have to have some specific termination
analyzer. It must be able to handle people
trying to trick it.

we should ask
POOH(D)? Because you said 'halt' means "the input to HHH(DDD) specifies is the
behavior that HHH must report on."
 And, how is POOH useful to AI and human if POOH cannot be reproduced?
 

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer