Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria

On 3/15/2024 4:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/15/24 2:02 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/15/2024 3:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/15/24 1:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>

To the best of my current knowledge all of your rebuttals
to this relied on counter-factual assumptions that cannot
possibly be supported with correct reasoning because they
are counter-factual.
>

>
Which is a meaningless subjective statement
>
Since you fail to ever point out an actual couter-factual assumption,

>
>
*I pointed out the facts and you disagreed*
(a) The behavior of every H(D,D) is identical because it is the same
code and data.
>

Agreed. But that is the FINAL H decided on, since that is the only one that actually exists and D is claimed to be like the H^ in Linz proof
 

(b) The executed H(D,D) always has at least one execution trace more
data than any of its simulated instances.

 False. Only true at a given instant of a given H's simulation.
 

At each point in any actual execution trace...
Fantasy traces that cannot possibly occur don't count.

ALL H's will eventually see that exact same data.
 

>
(c) This entails that the executed H(D,D) sees its abort status criteria
sooner than any of its simulated instances.

 True. Sooner, but the ALL will when we look at the ACTUAL BEHAVIOR of the machine being simulated.
 

On 3/15/2024 3:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
 > On 3/15/24 1:37 PM, olcott wrote:
 >>
 >> It is a fact that the behavior of D(D) after it aborts
 >> its simulation cannot be used as abort status criteria or
 >> no H(D,D) would ever abort its simulation.
 >>
 >
 > Yes, that is a correct computational argument, but doesn't prove the
 > criteria used is correct.
 >

>
(d) We assume (the design criteria) that each H(D,D) aborts its
simulation as soon as its abort status criteria has been met.

 Ok, but that doesn't prove any given stated conditions are correct.
 

This is a simplifying assumption to make my explanation
less convoluted.

>
(e) (a)(b)(c)(d) Entail that unless the executed H(D,D) aborts its
simulation that none of the simulated instances of H(D,D) ever will.
>

 UNSOUND ARGUMENT. You can't "Assume" that H doesn't abort, since it does. You don't understand the logical meaning of "unless"
 

On 3/15/2024 3:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
 > On 3/15/24 1:37 PM, olcott wrote:
 >>
 >> It is a fact that the behavior of D(D) after it aborts
 >> its simulation cannot be used as abort status criteria or
 >> no H(D,D) would ever abort its simulation.
 >>
 >
 > Yes, that is a correct computational argument, but doesn't prove the
 > criteria used is correct.
 >
<snip you disagreeing with yourself>
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer