Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Defining a correct simulating halt decider --- Doug Lenat
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2024 21:20:10 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <20ee7b1d6e8bbe9fe335816ac7ea2503b3629348@i2pn2.org>
References: <vb4plc$2tqeg$1@dont-email.me> <vb6o5t$3a95s$1@dont-email.me>
 <vb71a3$3b4ub$4@dont-email.me> <vbbmuc$8nbb$1@dont-email.me>
 <vbcbe4$bdtb$3@dont-email.me> <vbeoge$q2ph$1@dont-email.me>
 <vbeprp$punj$7@dont-email.me>
 <c600a691fab10473128eed2a1fad2a429ad4733f@i2pn2.org>
 <vbh2sp$19ov0$1@dont-email.me> <vbhm3c$1c7u5$12@dont-email.me>
 <vbkdph$1v80k$1@dont-email.me> <vbne7e$2g6vo$6@dont-email.me>
 <vbp1d7$2sg7q$1@dont-email.me> <vbqnqi$381t6$1@dont-email.me>
 <vbrh87$3fttk$1@dont-email.me> <vbrvln$3im2p$2@dont-email.me>
 <vbsglu$3mme2$5@dont-email.me> <vbt8di$3rqef$1@dont-email.me>
 <6ea95eadc7229a1670d4705b149b4a2bb0290846@i2pn2.org>
 <vbtcq8$3slge$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2024 01:20:11 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1725147"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vbtcq8$3slge$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 7909
Lines: 152

On 9/11/24 8:32 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?
>>
> 
> They key is (as I have been saying for a long time)
> To anchor the accurate model of the actual world in axioms.
> https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2308/2308.04445.pdf
> 

Which means you need to assume something that doesn't exist.

You might be able to detect Analytical lies (statements that can be 
analytically refuted, because there falsehood doesn't depend on any 
actual observations of the world), but not all lies.

Thus, "Climate Change", which by definition is based on observations, 
can not be the subject of your lie detector, because by necessity, we 
have uncertainty about the actual facts of the phenomenon.

>> The problem seems to be that you are ASSUMING it.
>>
>> The big problem with trying to detect lies in real time based on 
>> knowing truth is that not all truth is knowable, so you have started 
>> in a whole to begin with,
>>
>> Your problem seems to be that you don't really understand what TRUTH 
>> acutally is, because your father has told you so many lies about it.
> 
>