| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<38030d368928bd88576b32b69c6e2c8d598a9e26@i2pn2.org> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
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 --- Trump and Hitler Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2024 16:47:28 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <38030d368928bd88576b32b69c6e2c8d598a9e26@i2pn2.org> References: <vb4plc$2tqeg$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> <vbtis7$1glm$1@dont-email.me> <50f1b5a566928de7d70d86f03260ea519f0436e9@i2pn2.org> <vbtkt5$1psh$1@dont-email.me> <23df01d430433cf117a4e87de77698eac39355e1@i2pn2.org> <vbumr0$8crn$2@dont-email.me> <f7f045c8c0e9cac680a4b8426d3fac859696966c@i2pn2.org> <vbupcn$91rb$1@dont-email.me> <87b7f511951963d28217349e97fd5835a644e9bb@i2pn2.org> <vbvcn8$cgsm$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2024 20:47:29 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="1825385"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 In-Reply-To: <vbvcn8$cgsm$1@dont-email.me> Bytes: 19051 Lines: 420 On 9/12/24 2:42 PM, olcott wrote: > On 9/12/2024 1:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 9/12/24 9:12 AM, olcott wrote: >>> On 9/12/2024 7:51 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 9/12/24 8:29 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 9/12/2024 6:53 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 9/11/24 10:50 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> 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. ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========