Path: ...!news.nobody.at!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Defining a correct simulating halt decider Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2024 21:51:23 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 167 Message-ID: References: <6ea95eadc7229a1670d4705b149b4a2bb0290846@i2pn2.org> <50f1b5a566928de7d70d86f03260ea519f0436e9@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2024 04:51:24 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="273dca7c823af3d19498bfc27cf643dc"; logging-data="59281"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19fAjKLhftcSG3aDE1Kc6+l" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:cwQwNjV/sikK1vtcgfmpCPNe2Mk= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <50f1b5a566928de7d70d86f03260ea519f0436e9@i2pn2.org> Bytes: 8589 On 9/11/2024 9:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 9/11/24 10:15 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 9/11/2024 6:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 9/11/24 7:17 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 9/11/2024 11:31 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>> Op 11.sep.2024 om 13:41 schreef olcott: >>>>>> On 9/11/2024 2:35 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> On 2024-09-11 00:21:36 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 9/10/2024 3:52 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2024-09-09 18:19:26 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 9/8/2024 9:53 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-09-07 13:57:00 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/7/2024 3:29 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-09-07 05:12:19 +0000, joes said: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Fri, 06 Sep 2024 06:42:48 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/6/2024 6:19 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-09-05 13:24:20 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/5/2024 2:34 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-09-03 13:00:50 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2024 5:25 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-09-02 16:38:03 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A halt decider is a Turing machine that computes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the mapping from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its finite string input to the behavior that this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite string >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifies. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A halt decider needn't compute the full behaviour, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only whether >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that behaviour is finite or infinite. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> New slave_stack at:1038c4 Begin Local Halt Decider >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulation >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulation Stopped >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hence  HHH(DDD)==0 is correct >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nice to see that you don't disagree with what said. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unvortunately I can't agree with what you say. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH terminates, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> os DDD obviously terminates, too. No valid >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDD emulated by HHH never reaches it final halt state. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If that iis true it means that HHH called by DDD does >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not return and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> therefore is not a ceicder. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The directly executed HHH is a decider. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What does simulating it change about that? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If the simulation is incorrect it may change anything. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> PATHOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS CHANGE BEHAVIOR >>>>>>>>>>>> PATHOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS CHANGE BEHAVIOR >>>>>>>>>>>> PATHOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS CHANGE BEHAVIOR >>>>>>>>>>>> PATHOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS CHANGE BEHAVIOR >>>>>>>>>>>> PATHOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS CHANGE BEHAVIOR >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> However, a correct simultation faithfully imitates the original >>>>>>>>>>> behaviour. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> _DDD() >>>>>>>>>> [00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping >>>>>>>>>> [00002173] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping >>>>>>>>>> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD >>>>>>>>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD) >>>>>>>>>> [0000217f] 83c404     add esp,+04 >>>>>>>>>> [00002182] 5d         pop ebp >>>>>>>>>> [00002183] c3         ret >>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183] >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> A correct emulation obeys the x86 machine code even >>>>>>>>>> if this machine code catches the machine on fire. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It is impossible for an emulation of DDD by HHH to >>>>>>>>>> reach machine address 00002183 AND YOU KNOW IT!!! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A correct emulation of DDD does reach the machine address >>>>>>>>> 0000217f and >>>>>>>>> a little later 00002183. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *That is counter-factual and you cannot possibly show otherwise* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A halt decider is required to predict about the actual execution, >>>>>>> not a couterfactual assumption. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> False assumption. >>>>>> A halt decider must compute the mapping that its input >>>>>> finite string specifies. >>>>> >>>>> And the input, a finite string that describes a program based on >>>>> the aborting HHH, describes a halting program, as proven by the >>>>> direct execution, by the unmodified world class simulator and even >>>>> by HHH1. The semantics of the x86 language allows only one >>>>> behaviour for the finite string. Any program claiming another >>>>> behaviour violates the semantics of the x86 language, >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It is ridiculously stupid to assume that the fact >>>>>> that DDD calls its own emulator does not change >>>>>> its behavior relative to not calling its own emulator. >>>>> >>>>> It ridiculous to assume that the semantics of the x86 language >>>>> allows another behaviour for the finite string. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Why do you have a religious conviction to this stupid >>>>> mistake? >>>> >>>> Once we understand we can make a machine that detects >>>> lies in real time on the basis of knowing truth we will >>>> know that we didn't have to die from climate change or >>>> allow the rise of the fourth Reich. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Are you sure we can do that? >>> >>> The problem seems to be that you are ASSUMING it. >>> >> >> The key is (as I have been saying for a long time) >> To anchor the accurate model of the actual world in axioms. > > And how do you know your axiom about the actual world are correct? > Things about what we have defined are one thing. (like defining a foot > to be 12 inches). But anything that is based on observation inherently > has a degree of error, and thus we can't actually KNOW if our > conclusions are true. > >> >> *AS FREAKING DETAILED BELOW* >> Getting from Generative AI to Trustworthy AI: >> What LLMs might learn from Cyc >> https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2308/2308.04445.pdf > > Which absolutely can't tell if something about an empirical statement is > actually correct, as it is a pure analytic system. > > Your problem, again, is that you just don't understand what you are > reading, or talking about, because you have literally decided not to > study the core of logic to know how it works, and thus are speaking out > of pure ignorance. > >> >> *Some of the most brilliant minds in AI for 40 years* >> Doug Lenat Gary Marcus July 31, 2023 >> >> > > When you change the tag on my post then the post becomes one that I never look at. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer