Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria --self-evident truth--

On 3/16/24 8:47 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/16/2024 10:19 PM, immibis wrote:

On 17/03/24 03:35, olcott wrote:

On 3/16/2024 9:26 PM, immibis wrote:

On 17/03/24 01:50, olcott wrote:

On 3/16/2024 7:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/16/24 8:29 AM, olcott wrote:

On 3/15/2024 11:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/15/24 8:45 PM, olcott wrote:

H(D,D) fails to make the required mistake of reporting on what it does not see.

>
But it DOES make a mistake, because it does answer the question correctly.
>
You are just PROVING you think lying is ok.
>
You TOTALLY don't understand the meaning of truth.
>
You are REALLY just a Pathological Liar, as you have no concept of real truth,
>

>
The original halt status criteria has the impossible requirement
that H(D,D) must report on behavior that it does not actually see.
Requiring H to be clairvoyant is an unreasonable requirement.
*The criteria shown below eliminate the requirement of clairvoyance*
>
(a) 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
>
*H correctly simulates its input D until*
Means H does a correct partial simulation of D until H correctly
matches the recursive simulation non-halting behavior pattern.
>
>

>
But turning out to be impposible, doesn't make it incorrect or invalid.

>
*You seems to be ridiculously disingenuous about the self-evident truth*
For every possible way that H can be encoded and D(D) calls H(D,D) either H(D,D) aborts its simulation or D(D) never stops running.
>

>
For every possible way that H can be encoded, H(D,D) aborts its simulation.

>
That does not correspond to the specification of H shown immediately
above that only has H(D,D) simulate its input and does not even require
H to ever stop running.

>
It corresponds to the actual H that you wrote.

 For every possible way that H can be encoded and D(D) calls H(D,D)
either H(D,D) aborts its simulation or D(D) never stops running.
 In this post we are only talking about the spec immediately above.
within this scope [Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria]

And the word in phrase in question is "H correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running unless aborted"
If H is to leave open the option of later being considered a Halt Decider, that limits the options for defining this term.
Under those definitions, H fails.
If you want to try to give it a different meaning, you need to make it clear that you are repudiating that option, and any acceptance of the criteria being made is with the understanding that this disappears if H needs to be consider something like a Halt Decider of Computation Theory.

 We never ever get closure with any broader scope than a single
point-at-a-time. Only since I have been requiring this have we
ever gotten any closure.

And that broader scope still intrudes into this piece, by limiting the definition of words.
Since it is clear you intend to get to that broader scope, you can't try to stipulate meaning on words incompatible with that broader scope.

 

>

If you change it so it doesn't abort its simulation, then it's a different H, not just a different encoding.

>

>