XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: polcott2@gmail.com   
      
   On 3/13/2024 1:16 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:   
   > On 03/12/2024 09:00 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 3/12/2024 10:49 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:   
   >>> On 03/12/2024 08:23 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:   
   >>>> On 03/12/2024 07:52 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>> On 3/12/2024 9:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 3/12/24 4:31 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 3/12/2024 6:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On 3/12/24 3:53 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> On 3/12/2024 5:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>> On 3/12/24 2:34 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>> On 3/12/2024 4:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/12/24 1:11 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/12/2024 2:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/12/24 12:02 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/12/2024 1:31 PM, immibis wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/03/24 19:12, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ∀ H ∈ Turing_Machine_Deciders   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ∃ TMD ∈ Turing_Machine_Descriptions  |   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is some input TMD to every H such that   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And it can be a different TMD to each H.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we disallow decider/input pairs that are incorrect   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> questions where both YES and NO are the wrong answer   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once we understand that either YES or NO is the right   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer, the whole rebuttal is tossed out as invalid and   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞   
   // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halts   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn     
   // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not halt   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BOTH YES AND NO ARE THE WRONG ANSWER FOR EVERY Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩   
   ⟨Ĥ⟩   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, because a given H will only go to one of the answers.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> will be wrong, and the other one right.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> ∀ H ∈ Turing_Machine_Deciders   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> ∃ TMD ∈ Turing_Machine_Descriptions  |   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> Not exactly. A pair of otherwise identical machines that   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> (that are contained within the above specified set)   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> only differ by return value will both be wrong on the   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> same pathological input.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> You mean a pair of DIFFERENT machines. Any difference is   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> different.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> Every decider/input pair (referenced in the above set) has a   
   >>>>>>>>>>> corresponding decider/input pair that only differs by the return   
   >>>>>>>>>>> value of its decider.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> Nope.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> ∀ H ∈ Turing_Machines_Returning_Boolean   
   >>>>>>>>> ∃ TMD ∈ Turing_Machine_Descriptions  |   
   >>>>>>>>> Predicted_Behavior(H, TMD) != Actual_Behavior(TMD)   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> Every H/TMD pair (referenced in the above set) has a   
   >>>>>>>>> corresponding H/TMD pair that only differs by the return   
   >>>>>>>>> value of its Boolean_TM.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> That isn't in the set above.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> That both of these H/TMD pairs get the wrong answer proves that   
   >>>>>>>>> their question was incorrect because the opposite answer to the   
   >>>>>>>>> same question is also proven to be incorrect.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Nope, since both aren't in the set selected.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> When they are deciders that must get the correct answer both   
   >>>>>>> of them are not in the set.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> *IF* they are correct decider.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> WHen we select from all Turing Machine Deciders, there is no   
   >>>>>> requirement that any of them get any particular answer right.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> So, ALL deciders are in the set that we cycle through and apply the   
   >>>>>> following logic to ALL of them.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Each is them paired with an input that it will get wrong, and the   
   >>>>>> existance of the input was what as just proven, the ^ template   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> When they are Turing_Machines_Returning_Boolean the this   
   >>>>>>> set inherently includes identical pairs that only differ   
   >>>>>>> by return value.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> But in the step of select and input that they will get wrong, they   
   >>>>>> will be givne DIFFERENT inputs.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> You just don't understand what that statement is saying.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> I've expalined it, but it seems over you head.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> No the problem is that you are not paying attention.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> No, you keep on making STUPID mistakes, like thinking that select a   
   >>>>>> input that the machine will get wrong needs to be the same for two   
   >>>>>> differnt machines.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> For Every H, we show we can find at least one input (chosen just   
   >>>>>>>> for   
   >>>>>>>> that machine) that it will get wrong.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> When we use machine templates then we can see instances of   
   >>>>>>> the same machine that only differs by return value where both   
   >>>>>>> get the wrong answer on the same input. By same input I mean   
   >>>>>>> the same finite string of numerical values.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> But if they returned differnt values, they will have different   
   >>>>>> descriptions.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Otherwise, how could a UTM get the right answer, since it only gets   
   >>>>>> the description.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> We can get around all of this stuff by simply using this criteria:   
   >>>>> Date 10/13/2022 11:29:23 AM   
   >>>>> *MIT Professor Michael Sipser agreed this verbatim paragraph is   
   >>>>> correct*   
   >>>>> (He has neither reviewed nor agreed to anything else in this paper)   
   >>>>> (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   
   >>>>> (b) H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D   
   >>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> *When we apply this criteria* (elaborated above)   
   >>>>> Will you halt if you never abort your simulation?   
   >>>>> *Then the halting problem is conquered*   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> When two different machines implementing this criteria   
   >>>>> get different results from identical inputs then we   
   >>>>> know that Pathological Self-Reference has been detected.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> We don't even need to know that for:   
   >>>>> *denial-of-service-attack detection*   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)