Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Defining a correct halt decider
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2024 08:10:33 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <0ba58a910e75f101ed4c37d975cf89a5fe1b85d0@i2pn2.org>
References: <vb4npj$1kg8k$1@dont-email.me> <vb6i8p$39fhi$1@dont-email.me>
	<vb72a4$3b4ub$6@dont-email.me>
	<bcef318ec77a8792164a6626ba6d8a05007311da@i2pn2.org>
	<vb7pig$3evto$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2024 08:10:33 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="801060"; 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: 4620
Lines: 80

Am Tue, 03 Sep 2024 14:54:56 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 9/3/2024 1:53 PM, joes wrote:
>> Am Tue, 03 Sep 2024 08:17:56 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 9/3/2024 3:44 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-09-02 16:06:11 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>> Your "definition" fails to specify "encoding". There is no standard
>>>> encoding of Turing machines and tape contents.
>>> That is why I made the isomorphic x86utm system.
>>> By failing to have such a concrete system all kinds of false
>>> assumptions cannot be refuted.
>> What would those assumptions be?

>>> The behavior of DDD emulated by HHH** <is> different than the behavior
>>> of the directly executed DDD** **according to the semantics of the x86
>>> language
>> How can the same code have different semantics?
> The pathological relationship between DDD and HHH really cannot be
> simply ignored as if it does not exist.
How is it ignored?

>>> HHH is required to report on the behavior tat its finite string input
>>> specifies even when this requires HHH to emulate itself emulating DDD.
>> The input specifies an aborting HHH - which you don’t simulate.
> void DDD()
> {
>    HHH(DDD);
>    OutputString("This code is unreachable by DDD emulated by HHH");
> }
I thought HHH returned „DDD doesn’t halt, so I aborted it”?

>>> DDD never halts unless it reaches its own final halt state. The fact
>>> that the executed HHH halts has nothing to do with this.
>> Other than that DDD calls HHH?

>>> HHH is not allowed to report on the computation that itself is
>>> contained within.
>> Then it is only partial, and doesn’t even solve the case it was built
>> for.
> sum(3,4) is not allowed to report on the sum of 5 + 6 for the same
> reason. HHH(DDD) cannot report on behavior that it cannot see.
It has complete information, so it must do something wrong.

> HHH cannot correctly report on the AFTER-THE-FACT behavior that it has
> aborted its simulation BEFORE-THE-FACT.
Can you expand on this?

>>> Except for the case of pathological self-reference the behavior of the
>>> directly executed machine M is always the same as the correctly
>>> simulated finite string ⟨M⟩.
>> That sure sounds like a mistake to me.

> I initially took disagreeing with this as despicable lying bastards
> playing sadistic head games.
> I called Ben this and that is why he is mad at me.
Understandable. Have you tried apologising?

>>> That no one has noticed that they can differ does not create an axiom
>>> where they are not allowed to differ.
>> They were never allowed, that was the definition.
> When you make a definition that halt deciders compute the mapping from
> their inputs to the behavior that these inputs specify
> and textbooks say things that seem to disagree with definition then
> gullible sheep will agree with the textbooks.
I’d rather believe the textbooks than your definition.

>>> No one noticed that they differ only because everyone rejected the
>>> idea of a simulating halt decider out-of-hand without review.
>> I think after 3 years that excuse has grown a bit stale.

> For three freaking years the gullible sheep on this forum continue to
> believe that the pathological relationship of the decider to its input
> does not change the behavior of this input
The input exists independently of its simulation.

> *EVEN WHEN IT IS CONCLUSIVELY PROVED THAT IT DOES CHANGE THIS BEHAVIOR*
Empirical evidence can be flawed.

-- 
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.