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, 18:08:38
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <ut9ou7$28gom$1@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 3/18/24 7:44 AM, olcott wrote:
On 3/18/2024 1:04 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
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.
*You keep talking in circles, there are only two sets*
No, there are NOT only two sets.
You only look at two sets, because you either artifically have limited them, or because you have added in incorrect modification to the problem.
ANY input needs to be given to ANY decider. Otherwise, you are not in the domain of a decision problem.
∀H ∈ TM ∀D ∈ TMD | (H(D,D) simulates its input and D calls H(D,D))
So, you have THREE conditional in this statement, one of which has been largely overridden
1) ∀H ∈ TM
2) ∀D ∈ TMD // Which is overridden by the third.
3) 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.
*By whatever means H(D,D) places itself in (2) then H(D,D) is correct*
So these divide the FIRST conditional, and use the 3rd conditional to select its ONE D (not ∀D ∈ TMD)
So, (1) looks at a sub-set of the Ds, the ones that call an H in set (1) and shows these are non-halting.
(2) looks at a different set of Hs and a DIFFERENT set of Ds, none of which have had there halting status evaluated.
But, by simple inspection of these D's, since they call an H that has been stipulated to abort it simulation of its input and return 0, (that was our set division criteria), we see that these halt.
Thus these H do NOT meet the requirement of HAD to abort, because the Ds use an H that aborts and thus they will halt.
It is impropper to look at an input different then the one you are given to try to prove the behavior of the input you were given.
That is just unsound logic.
Remember, the problem is about the specific input that was given, which needs to be an actual computation to be part of the problem, and thus include all of its code that it uses, INCLUDEING that of the H it "calls".
IF you want to define that you problem isn't of this form, fine, but then you absolutely WILL NOT be able to later call it isomophic or in anyway similar to the problem of that form.
So, until you disavow that goal, you are stuck with that definition.
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 |