On 6/19/2022 5:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/19/22 12:47 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/18/2022 11:37 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 12:28:11 AM UTC-4,
richar...@gmail.com
>>> wrote:
>>>> And again, you haven't actually proven that it does this.
>>>>
>>>> Note, since H(P,P) is defined to abort its emulation, it doesn't itself
>>>> do a correct emulation, so the test isn't that H didn't reach a final
>>>> halt state, but would an actual emulator, using the same input
>>>> (including that input calling the above H, and not this emulator) be
>>>> able to reach a finl state.
>>>> One issue with this code is that it DOES have a hidden input, that
>>>> address that the code has been loaded at, so copies of H can behave
>>>> differently. I will leave it to someone with more expertise in this
>>>> area
>>>> to indicate how fatal that error is to your argument. This does say
>>>> that
>>>> if you DID implement this per the actual instructions of Linz, and
>>>> put a
>>>> COPY of H into P, this difference would be enough to be a problem, as
>>>> well as breaking your H.
>>>>
>>>> Note, you H only works in your broken computation model where H and the
>>>> program it tests are tied up into the same address space, and thus you
>>>> can not actually decide on an arbitrary program.
>>>>
>>>> Also, from this code, the subroutines Init_slave_state, and
>>>> Decide_Halting must also be 'pure' functions of there inputs (which
>>>> does
>>>> allow them to store information in the buffers provided, but not
>>>> anywhere else that might influence behavior.
>>>>
>>>> In particular, those functions need to behave exactly the same when
>>>> they
>>>> are evaluatd in the emulated context as when they are directly
>>>> executed.
>>>>
>>>> The the correct emuluation of H(P,P) by the actual correct and complete
>>>> emulator that is checking the truth that H claims, see the same results
>>>> as the direct execution.
>>>
>>> Did you mean "the correct emulation of P(P) / the input to H(P,P)"
>>> here, as well as below?
>>
>> That is just not the way it works.
>>
>> When a simulating halt decider rejects all inputs as non-halting
>> whenever it correctly detects (in a finite number of steps) that its
>> correct and complete simulation of its input would never reach a final
>> state of this input that all [these] inputs (including pathological
>> inputs) are decided correctly.
>
> Right, so H's answer must match what a CORRECT emulation if the TURING
> MACHINE (or PROGRAM) that its input represents would do.
Yes and in the same way when a person that represents them (their
lawyer) commits a crime then the person must go to jail because we must
always maintain the indirect relationship.
The direct relationship where the person did not commit the crime so
they don't go to jail must always be superseded by the indirect
relationship.
A halt decider must compute the mapping from its inputs to an accept or
reject state on the basis of the actual behavior of the actual inputs,
not the behavior of some mere proxy representative.