Re: Categorically exhaustive reasoning applied to the decision to abort

On 3/27/2024 10:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/27/24 11:17 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/27/2024 10:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/27/24 10:57 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/27/2024 9:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/27/24 10:33 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/27/2024 8:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/27/24 9:45 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/27/2024 7:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/27/24 3:36 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/27/2024 2:09 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 27.mrt.2024 om 15:09 schreef olcott:

On 3/27/2024 4:55 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 26.mrt.2024 om 15:43 schreef olcott:

On 3/26/2024 3:51 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 25.mrt.2024 om 23:50 schreef olcott:

On 3/24/2024 11:42 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-03-24 03:39:12 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 3/23/2024 9:54 PM, immibis wrote:

On 24/03/24 03:40, olcott wrote:

On 3/23/2024 9:34 PM, immibis wrote:

On 24/03/24 03:15, olcott wrote:

On 3/23/2024 8:40 PM, immibis wrote:

On 24/03/24 00:29, olcott wrote:

On 3/23/2024 5:58 PM, immibis wrote:

On 23/03/24 16:02, olcott wrote:

(b) H(D,D) that DOES abort its simulation is correct
     (ABOUT THIS ABORT DECISION)
     because it would halt and all deciders must always halt.

>
To be a decider it has to give an answer.
>
To be a halt decider it has to give an answer that is the same as whether the direct execution of its input would halt.

>
That would entail that

>
Tough shit. That is the requirement.

>
I proved otherwise in the parts you erased.

>
You proved that the requirement is not actually the requirement?

>
I proved that it cannot be a coherent requirement, it can still
be an incoherent requirement. Try and think it through for yourself.

>
Every program/input pair either halts some time, or never halts.
Determining this is a coherent requirement.

>
That part is coherent.

>
The part that this determination must be done by a Turing machine
using descriptions of the program and input is coherent, too.
>

>
Every decider is required by definition to only report on what
this input specifies.
>
int sum(int x, int y){ return x + y; }
sum(3,4) is not allowed to report on the sum of 5 + 6
even if you really really believe that it should.
>

>
Exactly! Therefore H(D,D), where D is based on H that aborts and returns false, so that D halts, should not return a report about another D that does not halt, even if you really really believe that it should.

>
There is enough information for sum(3,4) to compute the sum of 3+4.
There is NOT enough information for sum(3,4) to compute the sum of 5+6.
>
There is enough information for H1(D,D) to compute Halts(D,D).
There is NOT enough information for H(D,D) to compute Halts(D,D).
>

>
But it is possible to create a simulating sum decider that aborts sum and returns the sum of 5+6 and then claim that it is right, because it has not enough information to calculate 3+4. It is possible, but wrong.
The only reason it has not enough information, is that it aborts prematurely. That makes the decision to abort wrong. This holds for H as well.

>
Why are you denying reality?

>
Olcott is frustrated, but wrong.
>

>
Can D correctly simulated by H terminate normally?
01 int D(ptr x)  // ptr is pointer to int function
02 {
03   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
04   if (Halt_Status)
05     HERE: goto HERE;
06   return Halt_Status;
07 }
08
09 void main()
10 {
11   H(D,D);
12 }
>
*Execution Trace*
Line 11: main() invokes H(D,D);
>
*keeps repeating* (unless aborted)
Line 03: simulated D(D) invokes simulated H(D,D) that simulates D(D)

>
Wrong. Should be:
*will return false* (unless aborted)

>
There is no possible way that D simulated by any H ever
returns false whether its simulation has been aborted or not.
Are you fibbing about your programming  skill?
>

>
But that statement only hold in a world where the only simulator is H,

>
Yes that has always been the freaking point that you deep dodging to run out the clock of my rebuttals.

>
Which isn't the world you claim to be in, that of COMPUTASTION THEORY.
>
If you want to talk about a universe with only two "sets" of Programs, H and D, then SAY SO, and admit that you are talking about something WORTHLESS.
>

>
>
>

>

and a D that magically changes (and thus not actually a valid model)
>

>
*D IS ALWAYS THESE MACHINE CODE BYTES* 83c4088945fc837dfc007402ebfe8b45fc8be55dc3

>
And thus is NOT an actual PROGRAM, so outside the bounds of the theory.
>
>
>

>

That is just a LIE.

>
Every time you call me a liar puts you closer to
the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone.
>

>
Nope, since I speak the truth when I say it.
>
You just plant yourself deeper when you deny it.
>
Remember, your "beleif" doesn't matter to God. A LIE is the speaking of a FALSEHOOD, whether known or not.
>

>
THAT IS FALSE.

>
Nope.
>
God is the God of TRUTH.
>

>

People who honestly beleive the wrong things about God, are still going to experience his WRATH, because he gives us enough evidence, if we are willing to beleive him. He also gives us enough rope, that we can hang ourselves on our own self-deceptions.

>
A God that <is> Love and <has> Wrath cannot possibly exist
because love itself has no wrath.
>

>
Nope, you just don't understand, and it is just too complicated to explain to you.
>
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight.

>
Loving others with empathy goes directly against the inherently
selfish human nature and aligns with the divine nature.
>

>
But doesn't mean you are loving them in the way you are told to love them.

>
Loving them with empathy is the correct criterion measure.

 Nope, loving them with agape is the correct criterion measure, something you can't understand as you don't know god.
 

Yes that would be the correct criterion measure.
That is over most people's heads so loving others with
empathy cuts off loving them with self-righteous judgment.

Loving them with self-righteous indignation is incorrect.
Too many people that call themselves Christian just don't get this.

  I will agree with you there.
 

Great !!!

>

>
You don't KNOW the divine nature. You can't, because you say you reject anything that isn't "love" the way you want to define it.
>

>
Agape, pure benevolence is the Godly kind of love.

 And that is the love we are commanded to give. NOT "Empathetic", but AGAPE.
 

Simply totally become God and then just love others it too difficult
for any human. Loving them with Agape is the right path though.
I see far too many people that call themselves "Christian" that have
no empathy and only have self-righteousness in its place.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer