Sujet : Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria --self-evident truth--
De : richard (at) *nospam* damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Groupes : comp.theory sci.logicDate : 18. Mar 2024, 08:04:46
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <ut8lhu$27bqa$10@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 3/17/24 10:22 PM, olcott wrote:
On 3/18/2024 12:11 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 3/17/24 9:42 PM, olcott wrote:
On 3/17/2024 11:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 3/17/24 9:00 PM, olcott wrote:
On 3/17/2024 10:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 3/17/24 8:14 PM, olcott wrote:
On 3/17/2024 9:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
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.
>
*That merely changes the wording of the same truism*
∀H ∈ TM ∀D ∈ TMD such that
H(D,D) simulates its input and
D calls H(D,D) and
H(D,D) does not abort its simulation
necessitates simulated D(D) never stops running.
>
>
>
Third times and still not a charm.
>
All those D still use an H that doesn't abort
>
*You keep talking in circles, there are only two sets*
∀H ∈ TM ∀D ∈ TMD | (H(D,D) simulates its input and D calls H(D,D))
(1) H(D,D) does not abort its simulation then simulated D(D) never stops running.
(2) H(D,D) aborts its simulation then simulated D(D) stops running.
>
>
>
And your top line says NOTHING about the Ds in set (2), since nothing showed them not to run
>
but your (2) admitts that D(D) will stop running, and thus the top level H didn't need to abort its simulation.
>
>
Do you understand that each H(D,D) must either abort or fail to abort?
>
>
>
And do you understand
Yes that is what I am asking. It seems that you don't understand
the difference between X being a member of a set and X not being
a member of a set. Very elemental set theory.
And you seem to be trying to convientely forget that each D that you talk about is DIFFERENT, base on the H that it was designed to confound.
Your sets are each H with its paired D, but that D is thus only seen by one H.
If that H doesn't abort, then we collect the data needed to determine if that H had the right to abort with a claim of "Need".
If that H does abort, then that input has never been inspected to determine this.
Remember, the quesition is about THIS input, (which just happens to be the machine designed to confound you) and not defined to be the input which was designed to confound you (which would be invalid, since there is no Turing Machine Descxription to represent that) and that affects arguements like the one you are trying to make.
There is no actual restriction that a given input is only looked at by its "paired" decider, and no justification to claim that the inputs that were made for non-aborting inputs will act in a similar manner as the ones built on the aborting one.
In fact, it turns out that the sets you are build are exactly:
1) A set of non-halting machines, whose deciders never abort, even though they need to in answer, and thus don't decider
2) A set of halting machines, whose deciders DO abort them, but it can be shown they didn't NEED to abort this particular input.
If you pair up inputs from one set to deciders in the other, in many cases you WILL get correct answers, showing the inputs were not just undecidable".
that since your "sets" change D as you change H that you can't look at the behavior of one D with its H and apply that to a different D with its H?
>
Just because you show that a D based on an H that doesn't abort never halts doesn't mean that a D based on an H that does abort still doesn't halt.
>
Remember, unless you detatch these problem set from the actual Halting Problem, you need to remember that the question is about the particular input, and whatever deciders you give it to, not the template function given to each decider.
>
THAT question is problematical, as there isn't "A" answer, so it has become subjective.
>
The original question, is still objective.
>
Date | Sujet | # | | Auteur |
15 Mar 24 | Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria | 467 | | olcott |
15 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria | 23 | | immibis |
15 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria | 22 | | olcott |
15 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria | 10 | | Richard Damon |
15 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria | 6 | | olcott |
15 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria | 4 | | olcott |
15 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria | 3 | | olcott |
15 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria | 2 | | olcott |
15 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria | 1 | | olcott |
15 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria | 1 | | olcott |
15 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria | 3 | | olcott |
15 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria | 2 | | olcott |
15 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria | 1 | | Richard Damon |
15 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria | 11 | | immibis |
15 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria | 10 | | olcott |
15 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria | 9 | | olcott |
15 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria | 8 | | Richard Damon |
15 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria | 7 | | olcott |
15 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria | 6 | | Richard Damon |
15 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria | 5 | | olcott |
16 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria | 4 | | Richard Damon |
16 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria | 3 | | olcott |
16 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria | 2 | | olcott |
16 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria | 1 | | Richard Damon |
15 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria | 440 | | Richard Damon |
15 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria | 439 | | olcott |
15 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria | 11 | | Richard Damon |
15 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria | 10 | | olcott |
15 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria | 3 | | immibis |
15 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria | 2 | | olcott |
15 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria | 1 | | olcott |
15 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria | 6 | | olcott |
15 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria | 5 | | olcott |
15 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria | 3 | | olcott |
15 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria | 1 | | olcott |
16 Mar 24 | Re: Obviously Olcott doesn't understand what his own words mean! | 1 | | immibis |
16 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria | 1 | | immibis |
15 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria | 427 | | immibis |
15 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria | 425 | | olcott |
15 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria | 39 | | immibis |
15 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria | 5 | | olcott |
15 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria | 3 | | olcott |
17 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria --timing error-- | 2 | | olcott |
17 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria --timing error-- | 1 | | olcott |
16 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria | 1 | | immibis |
16 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria --Categorically Exhaustive Reasoning-- | 29 | | olcott |
16 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria --Categorically Exhaustive Reasoning-- | 19 | | olcott |
16 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria --Categorically Exhaustive Reasoning-- | 18 | | olcott |
16 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria --Categorically Exhaustive Reasoning-- | 17 | | olcott |
16 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria --Categorically Exhaustive Reasoning-- | 9 | | olcott |
16 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria --Categorically Exhaustive Reasoning-- | 8 | | olcott |
16 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria --Categorically Exhaustive Reasoning-- | 7 | | immibis |
16 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria --Categorically Exhaustive Reasoning-- | 6 | | olcott |
16 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria --Categorically Exhaustive Reasoning-- | 2 | | immibis |
16 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria --Categorically Exhaustive Reasoning-- | 1 | | olcott |
17 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria --Categorically Exhaustive Reasoning-- | 3 | | olcott |
17 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria --Categorically Exhaustive Reasoning-- | 1 | | Richard Damon |
17 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria --Categorically Exhaustive Reasoning-- | 1 | | immibis |
16 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria --Categorically Exhaustive Reasoning-- | 7 | | immibis |
16 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria --Categorically Exhaustive Reasoning-- | 6 | | olcott |
16 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria --Categorically Exhaustive Reasoning-- | 1 | | immibis |
17 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria --Categorically Exhaustive Reasoning-- | 4 | | Richard Damon |
17 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria --Categorically Exhaustive Reasoning-- | 3 | | olcott |
17 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria --Categorically Exhaustive Reasoning-- | 1 | | immibis |
17 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria --Categorically Exhaustive Reasoning-- | 1 | | Richard Damon |
16 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria --Categorically Exhaustive Reasoning-- | 9 | | immibis |
16 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria --Categorically Exhaustive Reasoning-- | 8 | | olcott |
16 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria --Categorically Exhaustive Reasoning-- | 7 | | immibis |
16 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria --Categorically Exhaustive Reasoning-- | 6 | | olcott |
16 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria --Categorically Exhaustive Reasoning-- | 5 | | immibis |
16 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria --Categorically Exhaustive Reasoning-- | 4 | | olcott |
16 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria --Categorically Exhaustive Reasoning-- | 3 | | immibis |
16 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria --Categorically Exhaustive Reasoning-- | 2 | | olcott |
16 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria --Categorically Exhaustive Reasoning-- | 1 | | immibis |
16 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria --Categorically Exhaustive Reasoning-- | 3 | | olcott |
16 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria --Categorically Exhaustive Reasoning-- | 2 | | immibis |
16 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria --Categorically Exhaustive Reasoning-- | 1 | | olcott |
21 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria--Mikes-rebuttal-- | 1 | | olcott |
15 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria | 385 | | olcott |
15 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria | 384 | | olcott |
15 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria --mistake-- | 383 | | olcott |
16 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria --mistake-- | 382 | | olcott |
16 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria --mistake-- | 381 | | olcott |
16 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria --mistake-- | 363 | | olcott |
16 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria --mistake-- | 362 | | olcott |
17 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria --mistake-- | 361 | | Richard Damon |
17 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria --self-evident truth-- | 360 | | olcott |
17 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria --self-evident truth-- | 25 | | immibis |
17 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria --self-evident truth-- | 24 | | olcott |
17 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria --self-evident truth-- | 16 | | Richard Damon |
17 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria --self-evident truth-- | 15 | | olcott |
17 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria --self-evident truth-- | 14 | | Richard Damon |
17 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria --self-evident truth-- | 13 | | olcott |
17 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria --self-evident truth-- | 12 | | Richard Damon |
17 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria --self-evident truth-- | 11 | | olcott |
17 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria --self-evident truth-- | 9 | | Richard Damon |
17 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria --self-evident truth-- | 8 | | olcott |
17 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria --self-evident truth-- | 7 | | Richard Damon |
17 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria --self-evident truth-- | 6 | | olcott |
17 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria --self-evident truth-- | 5 | | Richard Damon |
17 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria --self-evident truth-- | 4 | | olcott |
17 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria --self-evident truth-- | 1 | | immibis |
17 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria --self-evident truth-- | 7 | | immibis |
17 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria --self-evident truth-- | 334 | | Richard Damon |
16 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria --mistake-- | 17 | | immibis |
15 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria | 1 | | Richard Damon |
15 Mar 24 | Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria --moved dialogue-- | 3 | | olcott |