Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.bofh.team!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: Thu, 30 May 2024 21:58:51 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 142 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: Fri, 31 May 2024 04:58:52 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="08a73d0f9257967986a8324b25ade22a"; logging-data="2178321"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18fD23w9SG/ss8AUPimdBq4" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:kPticHunI7W+GsxEn8OTMCk3mXU= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 6949 On 5/30/2024 9:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/30/24 10:32 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/30/2024 9:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 5/30/24 9:54 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/30/2024 8:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 5/30/24 9:31 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 5/30/2024 2:40 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> On 2024-05-30 01:15:21 +0000, olcott said: >>>> >>>>>>>> x a finite string Turing machine description that SPECIFIES >>>>>>>> behavior. The term: "representing" is inaccurate. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, x is a description of the Turing machine that specifies the >>>>>>> behaviour >>>>>>> that H is required to report. >>>>>> >>>>>> That is what I said. >>>>> >>>>> Note, the string doesn't DIRECTLY specify behavior, but only >>>>> indirectly as a description/representation of the Turing Mach >>>>> >>>> >>>> The string directly SPECIFIES behavior to a UTM or to >>>> any TM based on a UTM. >>> >>> By telling that UTM information about the state-transition table of >>> the machine. >>> >>> Note, the description of the machine doesn't depend on the input >>> given to it, so it needs to fully specify how to recreate the >>> behavior of the machine for ALL inputs (an infinite number of them) >>> in a finite string. >>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> The maning of x is that there is a universal >>>>>>> Turing machine that, when given x and y, simulates what the >>>>>>> described >>>>>>> Turing machine does when given y. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes that is also correct. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ >>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ >>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>>> >>>>>> When embedded_H is a UTM then it never halts. >>>>> >>>>> But it isn't unless H is also a UTM, and then H never returns. >>>>> >>>>> You like to keep returning to that deception. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> When embedded_H is a simulating halt decider then its correctly >>>>>> simulated input never reaches its own simulated final state of >>>>>> ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩ and halts. H itself does halt and correctly rejects its >>>>>> input as non-halting. >>>>> >>>>> Except that isn't what the question is, the question is what the >>>>> actual behavior of the machine described, or equivalently, the >>>>> simulation by a REAL UTM (one that never stops till done). >>>> >>>> When embedded_H is a real UTM then Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ never stops and embedded_H is >>>> not a decider. >>> >>> Right, that is YOUR delema. You can't make H / embedded_H a UTM >>> without making it not a decider, thus "Correct Simulation by H" can't >>> be the answer, since H can't do both. >>> >>>> >>>> When embedded_H is based on a real UTM then ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated >>>> by embedded_H never reaches its own simulated final state of ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩ in >>>> any finite number of steps and after these finite steps embedded_H >>>> halts. >>> >>> Then its simulation isn't "correct" per the definitions that relate >>> simulation to behavior. >>> >> >> typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function in C >> 00 int HH(ptr p, ptr i); >> 01 int DD(ptr p) >> 02 { >> 03 int Halt_Status = HH(p, p); >> 04 if (Halt_Status) >> 05 HERE: goto HERE; >> 06 return Halt_Status; >> 07 } >> 08 >> 09 int main() >> 10 { >> 11 HH(DD,DD); >> 12 return 0; >> 13 } >> >> In other words you are insisting that every correct simulation >> of DD by HH must simulate the following x86 machine code of DD >> *incorrectly or in the incorrect order* because the following >> machine code proves that DD correctly simulated by HH cannot >> possibly reach its own machine address of 00001c47. > > It is "Incorrect" in that it is incomplete. > You already acknowledged that DD correctly simulated by pure simulator HH never reaches its own simulated final state so you already know that a complete simulation does not help. *Try and show how you are not lying* _DD() [00001c22] 55 push ebp [00001c23] 8bec mov ebp,esp [00001c25] 51 push ecx [00001c26] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] [00001c29] 50 push eax ; push DD 1c22 [00001c2a] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] [00001c2d] 51 push ecx ; push DD 1c22 [00001c2e] e80ff7ffff call 00001342 ; call HH [00001c33] 83c408 add esp,+08 [00001c36] 8945fc mov [ebp-04],eax [00001c39] 837dfc00 cmp dword [ebp-04],+00 [00001c3d] 7402 jz 00001c41 [00001c3f] ebfe jmp 00001c3f [00001c41] 8b45fc mov eax,[ebp-04] [00001c44] 8be5 mov esp,ebp [00001c46] 5d pop ebp [00001c47] c3 ret Size in bytes:(0038) [00001c47] *I am going to stop here and not respond to anything else* *that you say until AFTER this one point is fully resolved* -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer