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

On 3/15/24 4:31 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/15/2024 6:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/15/24 3:59 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/15/2024 5:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/15/24 2:26 PM, olcott wrote:

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.

>
But what DOES happen when the machine is actual run, do.
>

>
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.
 >

>
Right, DO you not understand what I was saying? Are you THAT Dumb.
>
The criteria H uses, can ONLY be based on what it actually know.
>

As I have been saying for a long time the criteria must be based on what H actually sees.

H needs to USE a criteria based on what it sees.
TO be correct, the criteria needs to be correct even about what H doesn't see.
If that is impossible, the question is not computable.

 

But to be CORRECT must match with the ACTUAL DETAIL that include what it doesn't know, including the FULL behavior of the machine when run.
>

(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
 *You keep getting this wrong*
*H correctly simulates its input D until*
*requires a partial simulation for all non-terminating inputs*
 H cannot correctly report on what it will do before it actually does this (as you suggest that it must do) or D(D) runs forever.
 

But it isn't CORRECT unless the answer it give matches the actual criteria of the problem, which looks at the full behavior of the program.
You are just admitting that you think it is ok to LIE about what you are answers so you can give an answer.
That means all the lie tells have an excues for telling their lies,
You are just admitting you don't actually BELIEVE in the concept of truth.