Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway? --- Mikes Review Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2024 08:13:42 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 219 Message-ID: References:

<0xqdnd8ktrnsc8D7nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>

MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2024 15:13:42 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4cb2a3366a4bdb85a28904f6e3988fec"; logging-data="1600839"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18KknncDcJAdFzxioAg4F7q" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:uMVwDaJeGGfTjIfKvyCfdisq9q0= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 12117 On 6/6/2024 3:25 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2024-06-05 13:08:19 +0000, olcott said: > >> On 6/5/2024 2:08 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 2024-06-04 17:12:49 +0000, olcott said: >>> >>>> On 6/3/2024 9:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/3/24 10:18 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/3/2024 8:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/3/24 9:46 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/3/2024 8:38 PM, Mike Terry wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 03/06/2024 18:54, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/3/2024 11:25 AM, Mike Terry wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 03/06/2024 04:50, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/2/2024 10:28 PM, Mike Terry wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/06/2024 01:16, immibis wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem says you can't find a Turing machine >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that tells whether executing each other Turing machine >>>>>>>>>>>>>> will halt. Simulation has nothing to do with the question. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Background: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> PO claims to have refuted the common HP proof, e.g. as >>>>>>>>>>>>> covered in the Linz book "An Introduction to Formal >>>>>>>>>>>>> Languages and Automata". PO occasionally posts a link to a >>>>>>>>>>>>> PDF containing an extract of the 5 or so pages of the book >>>>>>>>>>>>> containing the proof, but I expect you have access to this >>>>>>>>>>>>> or equivalent. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In a nutshell, the proof goes: >>>>>>>>>>>>> - Suppose H is a TM Halt decider that decides for any >>>>>>>>>>>>> input

whether >>>>>>>>>>>>> TM P run with input I on its input tape halts. >>>>>>>>>>>>> [

is the string representation of the actual TM P, and >>>>>>>>>>>>> is the string representation of input tape I] >>>>>>>>>>>>> - Construct from H a new TM H^ using the mechanical >>>>>>>>>>>>> process described in the proof. >>>>>>>>>>>>> If H exists, then its corresponding H^ also exists. >>>>>>>>>>>>> - Show that the construction of H^ ensures that: >>>>>>>>>>>>> - if H decides input (representing H^ running >>>>>>>>>>>>> with input ) halts, >>>>>>>>>>>>> then that implies that H^ running with input >>>>>>>>>>>>> never halts >>>>>>>>>>>>> - if H decides input never halts, >>>>>>>>>>>>> then that implies H^ running with input halts >>>>>>>>>>>>> I.e. either way, H decides the specific input >>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrectly, contradicting >>>>>>>>>>>>> the initial assumption that H is a halt decider. >>>>>>>>>>>>> - So no halt decider exists. (Every proposed halt decider >>>>>>>>>>>>> decides at least one input case >>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrectly, viz input .) >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> PO basically claimed he had a fully coded TM H, which >>>>>>>>>>>>> CORRECTLY decides its "nemesis" input , >>>>>>>>>>>>> contradicting the logic of the Linz proof [without pointing >>>>>>>>>>>>> out any actual mistake in the Linz proof]. Given most >>>>>>>>>>>>> people here understand the Linz proof well enough to see it >>>>>>>>>>>>> is basically sound, people were sceptical! >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It turned out PO was lying about the fully coded TM, and in >>>>>>>>>>>>> fact what he actually had was the idea behind a C program >>>>>>>>>>>>> which would "prove" his idea. A couple of years(?) later >>>>>>>>>>>>> he actually completed his C program and his x86utm.exe >>>>>>>>>>>>> which would simulate the x86 code of his H and H^ to >>>>>>>>>>>>> "prove" his claim. His equivalent of Linz H is his C >>>>>>>>>>>>> function H or HH, and his equivalent of Linz H^ is his D or >>>>>>>>>>>>> DD respectively. (They run under x86utm.exe and are not >>>>>>>>>>>>> Windows/Unix executables.) >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> H/HH use PARTIAL simulation of their input to decide >>>>>>>>>>>>> halting/non-halting, returning >>>>>>>>>>>>> 0 or 1 to communicate their decision. As you correctly >>>>>>>>>>>>> point out, to the HP proof simulation is quite irrelevant, >>>>>>>>>>>>> being just one kind of data manipulation that H may perform >>>>>>>>>>>>> on its input string

before it decides the halting >>>>>>>>>>>>> status. So the Linz HP proof covers such H, no problem. >>>>>>>>>>>>> [I put PARTIAL in caps, just because there seems to be some >>>>>>>>>>>>> confusion in recent threads as to what PO means by >>>>>>>>>>>>> "simulation". He doesn't say it explicitly, despite >>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestions to this effect, but he always means what might >>>>>>>>>>>>> be called /partial/ simulation.] >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> PO believes that by (partially) simulating the computation >>>>>>>>>>>>> corresponding to the input

[i.e. calculating the >>>>>>>>>>>>> successive x86 instruction steps of the computation P(I)] >>>>>>>>>>>>> and monitoring the progress of virtual x86 state changes >>>>>>>>>>>>> (like instruction address and op-code and so on) H could >>>>>>>>>>>>> spot some pattern that reveals whether computation P(I) >>>>>>>>>>>>> halts or not. At this point in the partial simulation, his >>>>>>>>>>>>> H would stop simulating (aka "abort" the simulation) and >>>>>>>>>>>>> return the appropriate halt status for input

. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Nothing remarkable so far! Clearly a tight-loop in P /can/ >>>>>>>>>>>>> be detected in this fashion, so /some/

inputs /can/ >>>>>>>>>>>>> be correctly determined like this. The PO claim however is >>>>>>>>>>>>> that the specific input is correctly decided by >>>>>>>>>>>>> his H. In C terms those correspond to H(D,D) correctly >>>>>>>>>>>>> returning the halt status of computation D(D). [PO would >>>>>>>>>>>>> probably dispute this, because he doesn't properly >>>>>>>>>>>>> understand halting or the HP generally, or in fact pretty >>>>>>>>>>>>> much /any abstract concept/ ] >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Introduction to the Theory of Computation, by Michael Sipser >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-Michael-Sipser/dp/113318779X/ >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 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) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D >>>>>>>>>>>> specifies a >>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting sequence of configurations. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I have started working on what seem to be some computability >>>>>>>>>>>> issues >>>>>>>>>>>> that you pointed out with my HH. I found that they are >>>>>>>>>>>> isolated to >>>>>>>>>>>> one single element of HH. Essentially the details of how the >>>>>>>>>>>> master >>>>>>>>>>>> UTM directly executed HH passes a portion of its tape to its >>>>>>>>>>>> slaves. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Nothing else seems to have any computability issues by the >>>>>>>>>>>> measure >>>>>>>>>>>> that I am using. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Message-ID: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/1/2024 12:41 PM, Mike Terry wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > Obviously a simulator has access to the internal state >>>>>>>>>>>> > (tape contents etc.) of the simulated machine. No problem >>>>>>>>>>>> there. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Because of your above comment it seems that correcting this >>>>>>>>>>>> tiny computability issue with HH is my best path forward. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You have given the following a blatantly false review when I >>>>>>>>>>>> said the same thing another way: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I have no idea what you're talking about. I did not write >>>>>>>>>>> any of what follows below. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Also I don't believe I said anything "blatantly false". >>>>>>>>>>> You're incapable of judging what other people say or are >>>>>>>>>>> thinking - you're often telling people that they'er lying to >>>>>>>>>>> you and denying >>>>>>>>>>> "previously verified facts" etc. but its all rubbish - you're >>>>>>>>>>> in no position to make such judgements. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Mike. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You said that the execution trace that I proved is correct is >>>>>>>>>> incorrect because you didn't like the way that HH was written. >>>>>>>>>> You said this without looking at my proof as you are doing ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========