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: Indirect Reference Changes the Behavior of DDD() relative to DDD
 emulated by HHH
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2024 11:29:57 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <36710a518aa2510f47d8082c30b9584130791212@i2pn2.org>
References: <va104l$376ed$4@dont-email.me> <va3f7o$3ipp3$1@dont-email.me>
 <729cc551062c13875686d266a5453a488058e81c@i2pn2.org>
 <va3kac$3nd5c$1@dont-email.me>
 <148bf4dd91f32379a6d81a621fb7ec3fc1e00db0@i2pn2.org>
 <va3lai$3nd5c$2@dont-email.me> <va46sd$3pr24$1@dont-email.me>
 <va4mle$3s0hu$1@dont-email.me>
 <5591ff08ed8f7b4bdf33813681e156b775efe0ec@i2pn2.org>
 <va63uu$2fo9$1@dont-email.me>
 <b0a86b6a1343ebb5f9112ae757768a7cbbc770b2@i2pn2.org>
 <va65r8$6ht7$1@dont-email.me>
 <da75188ffa7677bd2b6979c8fc6ba82119404306@i2pn2.org>
 <878qwn0wyz.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <efacnfsQdv-ErlT7nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <87le0jzc8f.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk> <vaj1kd$2kvg9$1@dont-email.me>
 <eca21d905b57bb0b98172c573890b5c8cda91da8@i2pn2.org>
 <vakisq$302rl$3@dont-email.me> <vamjse$3d6eb$1@dont-email.me>
 <van2ni$3f6c0$1@dont-email.me> <vap9r5$3t411$1@dont-email.me>
 <vapv4l$3vumk$4@dont-email.me> <vashj9$grso$1@dont-email.me>
 <vav3iq$10jsm$4@dont-email.me> <vavc3b$11uqn$2@dont-email.me>
 <vavcf8$129qh$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2024 15:29:57 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="364206"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vavcf8$129qh$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 7262
Lines: 124

On 8/31/24 11:22 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/31/2024 10:15 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 31.aug.2024 om 14:50 schreef olcott:
>>> On 8/30/2024 8:31 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-08-29 14:04:05 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 8/29/2024 3:00 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-08-28 11:46:58 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 8/28/2024 2:33 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-08-27 13:04:26 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/2024 12:45 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Am Mon, 26 Aug 2024 18:03:41 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/26/2024 7:42 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 23/08/2024 22:07, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We don't really know what context Sipser was given.  I got 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in touch
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at the time so I do know he had enough context to know 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that PO's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ideas were "wacky" and that had agreed to what he 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considered a "minor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remark". Since PO considers his words finely crafted and 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> key to his
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so-called work I think it's clear that Sipser did not take 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the "minor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remark" he agreed to to mean what PO takes it to mean!  My 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own take
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if that he (Sipser) read it as a general remark about how to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine some cases, i.e. that D names an input that H 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can partially
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate to determine it's halting or otherwise.  We all 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could construct some such cases.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Exactly my reading.  It makes Sipser's agreement natural, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is both correct [with sensible interpretation of terms], 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and moreover
>>>>>>>>>>>>> describes an obvious strategy that a partial decider might 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> use that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> can decide halting for some specific cases.  No need for 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sipser to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> deceptive or misleading here, when the truth suffices.  (In 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular
>>>>>>>>>>>>> no need to employ "tricksy" vacuous truth get out clauses 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> just to get
>>>>>>>>>>>>> PO off his back as some have suggested.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, and it fits with his thinking it a "trivial remark".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That aside, it's such an odd way to present an argument: "I 
>>>>>>>>>>>> managed to
>>>>>>>>>>>> trick X into saying 'yes' to something vague".  In any 
>>>>>>>>>>>> reasonable
>>>>>>>>>>>> collegiate exchange you'd go back and check: "So even when D is
>>>>>>>>>>>> constructed from H, H can return based on what /would/ 
>>>>>>>>>>>> happen if H did
>>>>>>>>>>>> not stop simulating so that H(D,D) == false is correct even 
>>>>>>>>>>>> though D(D)
>>>>>>>>>>>> halts?".  Just imagine what Sipser would say to that!
>>>>>>>>>> Is this an accurate phrasing, pete?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Deciders never compute the mapping of the computation
>>>>>>>>> that they themselves are contained within.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why not? A decider always either accepts or rejects its input.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The computation that they themselves are contained within cannot
>>>>>>> possibly be an input.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What would prevent that if the input language permits computations?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When a TM takes its own machine description as input
>>>>> this is not always that same behavior as the direct
>>>>> execution of the machine. It is not the same because
>>>>> it is one level of indirect reference away.
>>>>
>>>> Now you contradict what you said above. You said that deciders never
>>>> conpute the mapping of the computation they themselves are contained
>>>> within. 
>>>
>>> Although deciders cannot possibly see their own behavior
>>> other people can see this behavior.
>>>
>>>> Now you are saying that they do in a way that might not be
>>>> as expected.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If is a verified fact that DDD has different behavior
>>> before it is aborted in the same way that people are
>>> hungry before they eat.
>>
>> No, the behaviour specified by the finite string does not change when 
>> a simulator decides to do the simulation only halfway. It is just an 
>> incorrect simulation.
>>
>>>
>>> than the behavior of DDD after it has been aborted,
>>> people are not hungry after they eat.
>>
>> If two people are hungry and one of them eats, the other one is still 
>> hungry and needs to eat. It is stupid to say that they are no longer 
>> hungry because they have eaten.
>> Similarly the simulating HHH is not longer hungry, but the simulated 
>> HHH still is hungry and has not yet eaten.
>>
>>>
>>> The direct execution of DDD includes the behavior
>>> of the emulated DDD after it has been aborted.
>>
>> And the simulator should also simulate until it sees the behaviour of 
>> after the simulated HHH has aborted its simulator.
> 
> THIS IS ONLY YOUR OWN FREAKING STUPIDITY.
> 
> 

No, it is *YOUR* (as in Peter Olcott, the man that thinks he might be 
God) FREAKING STUPIDITY because he doesn't know a thing about what is 
actually truth or factual.