Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: joes Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic Subject: Re: Boilerplate Reply -- different simulation Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2024 08:47:57 -0000 (UTC) Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2024 08:47:57 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="791519"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM"; User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a git.gnome.org/pan2) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Bytes: 3959 Lines: 49 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. > 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? -- Man kann mit dunklen Zahlen nicht rechnen. Für die eigentliche Mathematik sind sie vollkommen nutzlos. --Wolfgang Mückenheim