Path: ...!news-out.netnews.com!s1-1.netnews.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Indirect Reference Changes the Behavior of DDD() relative to DDD
 emulated by HHH
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2024 11:26:23 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <15fbd929640db1655def099e0425bf9a13772589@i2pn2.org>
References: <va104l$376ed$4@dont-email.me>
 <7a1c569a699e79bfa146affbbae3eac7b91cd263@i2pn2.org>
 <va3f7o$3ipp3$1@dont-email.me>
 <729cc551062c13875686d266a5453a488058e81c@i2pn2.org>
 <va3kac$3nd5c$1@dont-email.me>
 <148bf4dd91f32379a6d81a621fb7ec3fc1e00db0@i2pn2.org>
 <va3lai$3nd5c$2@dont-email.me> <va46sd$3pr24$1@dont-email.me>
 <va4mle$3s0hu$1@dont-email.me>
 <5591ff08ed8f7b4bdf33813681e156b775efe0ec@i2pn2.org>
 <va63uu$2fo9$1@dont-email.me>
 <b0a86b6a1343ebb5f9112ae757768a7cbbc770b2@i2pn2.org>
 <va65r8$6ht7$1@dont-email.me>
 <da75188ffa7677bd2b6979c8fc6ba82119404306@i2pn2.org>
 <878qwn0wyz.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <efacnfsQdv-ErlT7nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <87le0jzc8f.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk> <vaj1kd$2kvg9$1@dont-email.me>
 <eca21d905b57bb0b98172c573890b5c8cda91da8@i2pn2.org>
 <vakisq$302rl$3@dont-email.me> <vamjse$3d6eb$1@dont-email.me>
 <van2ni$3f6c0$1@dont-email.me> <vap9r5$3t411$1@dont-email.me>
 <vapv4l$3vumk$4@dont-email.me> <vashj9$grso$1@dont-email.me>
 <vav3iq$10jsm$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2024 15:26:23 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="364206"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vav3iq$10jsm$4@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
X-Received-Bytes: 7506
Bytes: 7676
Lines: 160

On 8/31/24 8:50 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/30/2024 8:31 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-08-29 14:04:05 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 8/29/2024 3:00 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-08-28 11:46:58 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 8/28/2024 2:33 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-08-27 13:04:26 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 8/27/2024 12:45 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>> Am Mon, 26 Aug 2024 18:03:41 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 8/26/2024 7:42 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 23/08/2024 22:07, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> We don't really know what context Sipser was given.  I got 
>>>>>>>>>>>> in touch
>>>>>>>>>>>> at the time so I do know he had enough context to know that 
>>>>>>>>>>>> PO's
>>>>>>>>>>>> ideas were "wacky" and that had agreed to what he considered 
>>>>>>>>>>>> a "minor
>>>>>>>>>>>> remark". Since PO considers his words finely crafted and key 
>>>>>>>>>>>> to his
>>>>>>>>>>>> so-called work I think it's clear that Sipser did not take 
>>>>>>>>>>>> the "minor
>>>>>>>>>>>> remark" he agreed to to mean what PO takes it to mean!  My 
>>>>>>>>>>>> own take
>>>>>>>>>>>> if that he (Sipser) read it as a general remark about how to
>>>>>>>>>>>> determine some cases, i.e. that D names an input that H can 
>>>>>>>>>>>> partially
>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate to determine it's halting or otherwise.  We all 
>>>>>>>>>>>> know or
>>>>>>>>>>>> could construct some such cases.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Exactly my reading.  It makes Sipser's agreement natural, 
>>>>>>>>>>> because it
>>>>>>>>>>> is both correct [with sensible interpretation of terms], and 
>>>>>>>>>>> moreover
>>>>>>>>>>> describes an obvious strategy that a partial decider might 
>>>>>>>>>>> use that
>>>>>>>>>>> can decide halting for some specific cases.  No need for 
>>>>>>>>>>> Sipser to be
>>>>>>>>>>> deceptive or misleading here, when the truth suffices.  (In 
>>>>>>>>>>> particular
>>>>>>>>>>> no need to employ "tricksy" vacuous truth get out clauses 
>>>>>>>>>>> just to get
>>>>>>>>>>> PO off his back as some have suggested.)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, and it fits with his thinking it a "trivial remark".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That aside, it's such an odd way to present an argument: "I 
>>>>>>>>>> managed to
>>>>>>>>>> trick X into saying 'yes' to something vague".  In any reasonable
>>>>>>>>>> collegiate exchange you'd go back and check: "So even when D is
>>>>>>>>>> constructed from H, H can return based on what /would/ happen 
>>>>>>>>>> if H did
>>>>>>>>>> not stop simulating so that H(D,D) == false is correct even 
>>>>>>>>>> though D(D)
>>>>>>>>>> halts?".  Just imagine what Sipser would say to that!
>>>>>>>> Is this an accurate phrasing, pete?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Deciders never compute the mapping of the computation
>>>>>>> that they themselves are contained within.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why not? A decider always either accepts or rejects its input.
>>>>>
>>>>> The computation that they themselves are contained within cannot
>>>>> possibly be an input.
>>>>
>>>> What would prevent that if the input language permits computations?
>>>>
>>>
>>> When a TM takes its own machine description as input
>>> this is not always that same behavior as the direct
>>> execution of the machine. It is not the same because
>>> it is one level of indirect reference away.
>>
>> Now you contradict what you said above. You said that deciders never
>> conpute the mapping of the computation they themselves are contained
>> within. 
> 
> Although deciders cannot possibly see their own behavior
> other people can see this behavior.

But, by definition, they need to answer about *ANY* machine givem to them.

Are you just admitting at the beginning that fundamentally


> 
>> Now you are saying that they do in a way that might not be
>> as expected.
>>
> 
> If is a verified fact that DDD has different behavior
> before it is aborted in the same way that people are
> hungry before they eat.

Which is just proof that you logic is based on lies and category errors.

Sorry, you are just proving you don't understand what you are talking 
about and showing that you think that "Logic" (at least in the PO sense) 
allows LYING about things that you don't actually know about.

> 
> than the behavior of DDD after it has been aborted,
> people are not hungry after they eat.



> 
> The direct execution of DDD includes the behavior
> of the emulated DDD after it has been aborted.
> 
> The emulation of DDD includes the behavior of DDD
> before it has been aborted.

And thus isn't the COMPLETE behavior, and thus isn't the BEHAVIOR of the 
input.

I guess you think you could be God because God is immortal, and you 
haven't dies YET, so are currently "imo

> 
> The behavior of infinite recursion is different
> before its second recursive call has been aborted
> than after this second call has been aborted.


Only in logic that doesn't undertstad the nature of programs, and the 
fact that they are deterministic.

> 
> typedef void (*ptr)();
> 
> void HHH(ptr P)
> {
> // might abort here or not

And so, this is NOT an actual description of a real program.
And thus we can NOT determine the behavior of DDD.

You are just sinking your reputation.

>    P();
>    return 1;
> }
> 
> void DDD()
> {
>    HHH(DDD);  // second recursive call
>    return;
> }
> 
> int main()
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========