Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic Subject: Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise Date: Wed, 29 May 2024 19:59:19 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 106 Message-ID: References: <87y17smqnq.fsf@bsb.me.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 30 May 2024 02:59:20 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0a722b73a14c6c7bef786c05822a9348"; logging-data="1450587"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18pVw6Ko7v8DI8I5LWADLL9" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:LOknoJ8JACojcL+ntMrdtQ0civ4= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 5617 On 5/29/2024 7:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/29/24 8:17 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/29/2024 7:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 5/29/24 7:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/29/2024 6:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 5/29/24 2:31 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 5/29/2024 1:14 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>> Alan Mackenzie writes: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> How about a bit of respect?  Mike specifically asked you not to >>>>>>>> cite his >>>>>>>> name as a back up for your points.  Why do you keep doing it? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> He does it to try to rope more people in.  It's the same ploy as >>>>>>> insulting people by name.  It's hard to ignore being maligned in >>>>>>> public >>>>>>> by a fool. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *Thanks for validating my simplified encoding of the Linz* >>>>>> >>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ >>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ >>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>>> >>>>>> I really did believe that Ben Bacarisse was lying when I said it. >>>>>> >>>>>> At the time I was talking about the easily verified fact of the >>>>>> actual >>>>>> execution trace of fully operational code and everyone was denying >>>>>> the >>>>>> easily verified facts. >>>>>> >>>>>> 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       } >>>>>> >>>>>> It turns out that two dozen people are easily proven wrong when >>>>>> they claimed that the correct simulation of the input to H(D,D) >>>>>> is the behavior of int main() { D(D); } >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> How is that? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> When D is correctly simulated by H using an x86 emulator the only >>>>>> way that the emulated D can reach its own emulated final state >>>>>> at line 06 and halt is >>>>>> (a) The x86 machine code of D is emulated incorrectly >>>>>> (b) The x86 machine code of D is emulated in the wrong order >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Which isn't a "Correct Simulation" by the definition that allow the >>>>> relating of a "Simulation" to the behavior of an input. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Right the execution trace of D simulated by pure function H using >>>> an x86 emulator must show that D cannot possibly reach its own >>>> simulated final state and halt or the simulation of the machine >>>> language of D is incorrect or in the wrong order. >>> >>> So, you aren't going to resolve the question but just keep up with >>> your contradiction that H is simulating a template (that doesn't HAVE >>> any instrucitons of H in it) but also DOES simulate those >>> non-existance instructions by LYING about what it does and simulating >>> a SPECIFIC instance that it LIES behaves just like DIFFERENT specific >>> instatces. >> >> I will give you the benefit of the doubt and call that an honest >> misunderstanding. I have much more empathy for you now that I found >> that Linz really did say words that you could construe as you did. >> >> The infinite set of every H/D pair specified by the template >> where D is correctly simulated by pure simulator H or pure function >> H never has any D reach its own simulated final state and halt. > > But the question ISN'T about the SIMULATED D, but about the behavior of > the actual PROGRAM/MACHINE D > > This seems to be your blind spot. ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines ∀x ∈ Turing_Machines_Descriptions ∀y ∈ Finite_Strings such that H(x,y) = Halts(x,y) Not really the above formalization does not can cannot specify Turing Machines as the input to any decider H. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer