Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_A_simulating_halt_decider_applied_to_the_The_Peter_?= =?UTF-8?Q?Linz_Turing_Machine_description_=E2=9F=A8=C4=A4=E2=9F=A9?= Date: Mon, 27 May 2024 19:08:00 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 126 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 28 May 2024 02:08:01 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="62ab2bf33c274f123184493b42753dfc"; logging-data="293049"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19NjgZZjtoAXLpGQ3anhX8a" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:SMTPC896iPiCrIN12xwznqnzHdc= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 7142 On 5/27/2024 5:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/27/24 6:32 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/27/2024 4:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 5/27/24 3:45 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/27/2024 11:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 5/27/24 12:22 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 5/27/2024 10:58 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/27/24 11:46 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/27/2024 10:25 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 5/27/24 11:06 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> typedef int (*ptr)();  // ptr is pointer to int function in C >>>>>>>> 00       int H(ptr p, ptr i); >>>>>>>> 01       int D(ptr p) >>>>>>>> 02       { >>>>>>>> 03         int Halt_Status = H(p, p); >>>>>>>> 04         if (Halt_Status) >>>>>>>> 05           HERE: goto HERE; >>>>>>>> 06         return Halt_Status; >>>>>>>> 07       } >>>>>>>> 08 >>>>>>>> 09       int main() >>>>>>>> 10       { >>>>>>>> 11         H(D,D); >>>>>>>> 12         return 0; >>>>>>>> 13       } >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The above template refers to an infinite set of H/D pairs where >>>>>>>> D is >>>>>>>> correctly simulated by either pure simulator H or pure function >>>>>>>> H. This >>>>>>>> was done because many reviewers used the shell game ploy to >>>>>>>> endlessly >>>>>>>> switch which H/D pair was being referred to. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Correct Simulation Defined* >>>>>>>>     This is provided because many reviewers had a different >>>>>>>> notion of >>>>>>>>     correct simulation that diverges from this notion. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>     A simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly emulates 1 to >>>>>>>> N of the >>>>>>>>     x86 instructions of D in the order specified by the x86 >>>>>>>> instructions >>>>>>>>     of D. This may include M recursive emulations of H emulating >>>>>>>> itself >>>>>>>>     emulating D. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And how do you apply that to a TEMPLATE that doesn't define what >>>>>>> a call H means (as it could be any of the infinite set of Hs that >>>>>>> you can instantiate the template on)? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *Somehow we got off track of the subject of this thread* >>>>> >>>>> I note that YOU keep on switching between your C program and Turing >>>>> Machines. >>>>> >>>>> Note, per the implications that you implicitly agreed to (by not >>>>> even trying to refute) the two systems are NOT equivalents of each >>>>> other. >>>>> >>>> >>>> (1) I think you are wrong. I have not seen any of your >>>> reasoning that was not anchored in false assumptions. >>>> Your make fake rebuttal is to change the subject. >>>> >>>> (2) It does not matter my proof is anchored in the Linz >>>> proof and the H/D pairs are only used to have a 100% concrete >>>> basis to perfectly anchor things such as the correct meaning >>>> of D correctly simulated by H so that people cannot get away >>>> with claiming that an incorrect simulation is correct. >>>> >>>> int main() { D(D); } IS NOT THE BEHAVIOR OF D CORRECTLY SIMULATED BY H. >>>> One cannot simply ignore the pathological relationship between H and D. >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ >>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ >>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>>> >>>>>>   Ĥ copies its own Turing machine description: ⟨Ĥ⟩ >>>>>>   then invokes embedded_H that simulates ⟨Ĥ⟩ with ⟨Ĥ⟩ as input. >>>>>> >>>>>> For the purposes of the above analysis we hypothesize that >>>>>> embedded_H is either a UTM or a UTM that has been adapted >>>>>> to stop simulating after a finite number of steps of simulation. >>>>> >>>>> And what you do mean by that? >>>>> >>>>> Do you hypothesize that the original H was just a pure UTM, >>>> >>>> The original proof does not consider the notion of a simulating >>>> halt decider so I have to begin the proof at an earlier stage >>>> than any definition of H. >>> >>> The biggest problem is that the input to the Turing machine decider H >>> is the description of a Turing Machine H^, which is a SPECIFIC machine, >> >> When you say "specific machine" you don't mean anything like a >> 100% completely specified sequence of state transitions encoded >> as a single unique finite string. > > Mostly. > > There doesn't need to be a unique finite string, but it is a 100% > completely specified state transition/tape operation table. > When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn In other words Linz did not prove that there are no set of state transitions specified by ⊢* that derives the correct halt status of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩. He only said there there is one specific machine that gets the wrong answer. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer