Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic Subject: Re: Boilerplate Reply -- different simulation Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2024 08:08:51 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 57 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2024 15:08:52 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="52f855e26d0a069f32049d753a1d455d"; logging-data="3959835"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/FJ49wQe1HeSrJXKN0CqMF" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:EI2fIXzUVNXRLsLKXu/Xmi3RCRM= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 4362 On 6/22/2024 3:47 AM, joes wrote: > Am Fri, 21 Jun 2024 23:18:50 -0500 schrieb olcott: >> On 6/21/2024 11:09 PM, joes wrote: >>> Am Fri, 21 Jun 2024 15:52:21 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>> On 6/21/2024 3:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/21/24 3:45 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/21/2024 2:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/21/24 3:19 PM, olcott wrote: > >>> Like every other input, it should map to the behaviour of D(D). >>> You are talking about H(H, D(D)), which is H simulating itself. > >>>>>>>> When H is asked H(D,D) this DOES NOT map to behavior that halts. >>> Only if H returns. > >>>>>> If one "defines" that the input to H(D,D) maps to the behavior of >>>>>> D(D) yet cannot show this because it does not actually map to that >>>>>> behavior *THEN THE DEFINITION IS SIMPLY WRONG* >>> Ridiculous. H is wrong. Your modification is not useful. > >>>> No you cannot show that the mapping for the input to H(D,D) maps to >>>> the behavior of D(D). >>> If it doesn't, H is not a simulator. >>> The input D(D) absolutely describes the behaviour of that machine. >>> H just can't map it. >>> Either H is not a decider or it returns. > >>>> The directly executed D(D) is essentially the first call in a >>>> recursive chain where the second call is always aborted. >>>> *these two calls are not identical* >>> They most definitely are. The input is the same. > >>>> H(D,D) is not free to simply assume that the call from D(D) to H(D,D) >>>> will return. >>> Yes it is, because it is a decider. It (incorrectly) aborts >>> nonterminating inputs. >> The behavior of D correctly simulated by H1 is the same as the behavior >> of the directly executed D(D) because D does not call H1(D,D) in >> recursive simulation. > D1 however, which calls H1(D1, D1), can't be decided by H1. > When you change the subject rather than address the point at hand I take this to mean that you do not want an honest dialogue. >> The behavior of D correctly simulated by H is NOT the same as the >> behavior of D correctly simulated by H1 because D DOES call H(D,D) in >> recursive simulation. > The simulation by H is then of course not correct. > > What about the other points above? > -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer