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

On 3/17/24 4:27 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/17/2024 12:37 PM, immibis wrote:

On 17/03/24 14:11, olcott wrote:

On 3/17/2024 12:22 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/16/24 10:04 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/17/2024 12:00 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/16/24 9:42 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/16/2024 11:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/16/24 9:13 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/16/2024 10:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/16/24 7:52 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/16/2024 9:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/16/24 5:50 PM, 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.
>
>

>
And you are incredably stupid to not see this doesn't prove what you need it to.
>
Yes, if you define H to not abort, the we get a non-haltig D(D), but H doesn't answwer.
>
But, if you define H to abort, then,

>
We see that you changed the subject away from:
[Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria]
>

>
Nope.

>
H is an algorithm that simulates its input and correctly
determines whether or not it needs to abort this simulation.
That is all that this thread's H does.
>
>
>

And what defines "Need"?
>

It is the set of every implementation of its spec:
(a) H(D,D) Simulate input.
(b) Determine if it needs to stop simulating its input to prevent
the simulated D(D) from never halting.
>

>
And thus not a specific algorithm?
>
Again, HOW do you determine NEED?
>
That is not an algorithmic step.
>
We can only verify that in retrospect.

>
Do you fully understand the spec?
>
>

>
Yes, but I think not the way you do.
>
To me, for H to NEED to abort its simulation, that means that when giving the input to a correct simulator, that simulator will not halt.
>

Yes that is correct.

>
You have just proven that H doesn't need abort its simulation and the abort decision is incorrect.

 The head games of a Troll.
 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.
 

Which prove NOTHING, as D varies with H, so no D that was built with an H that aborts its simulation has had its actual halting status tested.
You are just proving you are using unsound logic.
You even agreed that the test of "Needs" was to give the input to an actual correct decider (which doesn't abort) and if it halts, then H was wrong, but that simulation will halt so H wasn't correct to abort.
So, you are showing that you are just lying.