Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-4.nntp.ord.giganews.com!nntp.brightview.co.uk!news.brightview.co.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2024 02:13:12 +0000 Subject: Re: No decider is accountable for the computation that itself is contained within Newsgroups: comp.theory References: <8ac9fd02d6247cec58098de53c964a5feed41946@i2pn2.org> <3c24d92260cc29c0b39004bf3448d415c567549a@i2pn2.org> <00e25e8f7bb0af364c2bad26b5a1ebeb76fee34d@i2pn2.org> From: Mike Terry Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2024 03:13:12 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/91.0 SeaMonkey/2.53.17 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: Lines: 65 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-Trace: sv3-d7xyKZ8vK7SmkfI1NSHZ2xxnIduDAMHRbWU6K5GBCJxhTV7yvSmaVZQ4epeYuLTKszI/cV9OXKJy/jF!EzDjcavYK/uVbiqxVrDcrNcNPPoomWW6AbtkwhICH4OjGrHaV3RzLmOmrzwmuwe8BWs6t5NXaAs1!0X0FKSPX7Z28YJThJy1jgAcNIzE= X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.40 Bytes: 4454 On 30/07/2024 22:22, olcott wrote: > On 7/30/2024 4:09 PM, joes wrote: >> Am Tue, 30 Jul 2024 15:13:34 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>> On 7/30/2024 2:52 PM, joes wrote: >>>> Am Tue, 30 Jul 2024 11:24:35 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>> On 7/30/2024 2:24 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>> Am Mon, 29 Jul 2024 15:32:44 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>> On 7/29/2024 3:17 PM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>> Am Mon, 29 Jul 2024 11:32:00 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>> On 7/28/2024 3:40 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2024-07-27 14:21:50 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>> On 7/27/2024 2:46 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-07-26 16:28:43 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Halt deciders are not allowed to report on the behavior of the >>>>>>>>> actual computation that they themselves are contained within. They >>>>>>>>> are only allowed to compute the mapping from input finite strings. >>>>>>>> What if the input is the same as the containing computation? >>>>>>> It always is except in the case where the decider is reporting on >>>>>>> the TM description that itself is contained within. >>>>> >>>>>> I don't understand. "The input is not the same as the containing >>>>>> computation when deciding on the description of the containing >>>>>> computation"? >>>> I mean: is that an accurate paraphrase? >>>> >>>>> An executing Turing machine is not allowed to report on its own >>>>> behavior. Every decider is only allowed to report on the behavior that >>>>> its finite string input specifies. >>>> And what happens when those are the same? > >>> That is always the case except in the rare exception that I discovered >>> where a simulating halt decider is simulating the input that calls >>> itself. > >> Always? Most TMs don't get themselves as input. OTOH that is one of >> the most interesting cases. >> The description of a TM specifies the behaviour of that machine >> when it is running. >> > > The x86 code of DDD when correctly emulated by HHH according > to the semantics of the x86 code of DDD and HHH does have > different behavior that the directly executed DDD as a matter > of verified fact for three years. > > People deny this as if a smash a Boston Cream pie in the face > and they deny that there ever was any pie even while their > voice is incoherent because they are talking through the pie > smashed on their face. Hehe, when you go on like this I can't help thinking of "head crusher": Mike. > > *I do not a more precise way to say this now* > DDD is emulated by HHH according to the semantics of the > x86 code of DDD and HHH. This does include a recursive call > from DDD to HHH(DDD) that cannot possibly stop repeating > unless HHH aborts its emulation of DDD. >