| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<abddacb71da4865d76662a71f334dccfa9352b1e@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,sci.logic Subject: Re: Ben thinks the professor Sipser is wrong Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 21:00:32 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <abddacb71da4865d76662a71f334dccfa9352b1e@i2pn2.org> References: <tic5tr$25uem$6@dont-email.me> <8735bpq5jh.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <v66o6i$2rv8q$3@dont-email.me> <8bbce1bb519f205ef865a07719bf35f68170ad61@i2pn2.org> <v66psp$2scuh$1@dont-email.me> <990598b3a90c559f7125530edef9c5a0ef2c7102@i2pn2.org> <v677vh$2u7lu$2@dont-email.me> <dbebddf487aebc1c848fc07abb0f7800e068f34e@i2pn2.org> <v67d2s$2v7vf$1@dont-email.me> <9d7ed80b2fc8e04050d413c3f922ce409d55f31c@i2pn2.org> <v67fgk$2vjvl$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2024 01:00:33 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="2173531"; 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: <v67fgk$2vjvl$1@dont-email.me> Bytes: 10336 Lines: 207 On 7/4/24 8:41 PM, olcott wrote: > On 7/4/2024 7:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 7/4/24 8:00 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/4/2024 6:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 7/4/24 6:33 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 7/4/2024 5:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 7/4/24 2:32 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/4/2024 1:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/4/24 2:04 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words >>>>>>>>> 10/13/2022> >>>>>>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D >>>>>>>>> until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never >>>>>>>>> stop running unless aborted then >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D >>>>>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. >>>>>>>>> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words >>>>>>>>> 10/13/2022> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>>> > I don't think that is the shell game. PO really /has/ an H >>>>>>>>> (it's >>>>>>>>> > trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines >>>>>>>>> that P(P) >>>>>>>>> > *would* never stop running *unless* aborted. >>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>> > But H determines (correctly) that D would not halt if it >>>>>>>>> were not >>>>>>>>> > halted. That much is a truism. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ben clearly agrees that the above criteria have been met, >>>>>>>>> yet feels that professor Sipser was tricked into agreeing >>>>>>>>> that this means that: >>>>>>>>> H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D >>>>>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I spent two years deriving those words that Professor Sipser >>>>>>>>> agreed with. It seems to me that every software engineer would >>>>>>>>> agree that the second part is logically entailed by the first >>>>>>>>> part. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You mean you WASTED two years and set a trap for your self that >>>>>>>> you fell into. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The problem is that Ben is adopting your definitions that >>>>>>>> professor Sipser is not using. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ben agrees that my criteria have been met according to their >>>>>>> exact words. If you want to lie about that I won't talk to >>>>>>> you again. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Which meant different things, so not the same. >>>>>> >>>>>> The biggest problem is your H/P interlocking program pair is >>>>>> something outside the normal scope of Computation theory. >>>>>> >>>>>> The way you have built your Deicder/Decider combination isn't >>>>>> actualy within the definition of normal Computaiton Theory, as >>>>>> that would have Decider as a totally independent program from the >>>>>> program it is deciding on. >>>>>> >>>>>> Your H and D aren't that sort of thing because they are interwined >>>>>> into a single memory space, and even share code. >>>>>> >>>>>> This makes some things possible to do about the pair that can not >>>>>> be done if they were independent programs, like H being able to >>>>>> detect that D calls itself (but not copies of itself, which is why >>>>>> you don't allow those copies, as that breasks your lie). >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Ever heard of string comparison? >>>>> H can detect that D calls copies of itself. >>>>> That merely makes the details more complex. >>>> >>>> Nope, doesn't work. Particularly for Turing Machines. >>>> >>>> The problem is that the seperate compliation and linking with the >>>> resultant different address makes the byte pattern for the code not >>>> necessarily a duplicate. >>>> >>>> When you consider that the input is antagonistic, it can also >>>> intentionally make alterations that do not change the outward >>>> behavior, but do change the byte code. >>>> >>>> I seem to remember that it has been proven that, in general, the >>>> identification of an equivalent copy of yourself is uncomputable. >>>> >>>> We went over this before, and you could never understand it. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Another of the big effect of thins, is that the way you defined >>>>>> it, D actually does have access to the decider that is going to >>>>>> decide it (if we follow your rule and name the decider H). This >>>>>> can turn what used to be an independent fully defined program P >>>>>> into a dependent program template. >>>>> >>>>> The key issue is that by my basis structure that applies equally >>>>> to DD correctly simulated by HH as it applies to ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly >>>>> simulated by embedded_H is that the paradoxical decision point >>>>> cannot be reached. This converts the "impossible" problem into a >>>>> difficult one. >>>> >>>> Nope. Your basic structure can not be converted back into a pair of >>>> Turing Machihes, showing it isn't based on actual Computations. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Undet THAT condition, Ben agreed that yoUr H could conclude that >>>>>> no version of H could simulate the version of D that uses it, to >>>>>> its final state. Since P is a template, and not a program, it >>>>>> doesn't have the normal Objective definition of behavior, and thus >>>>>> your subjective one might need to be used, even with its problems. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The key point that you must acknowledge before continuing is >>>>> that the criteria is met for H/D. I can't tolerate one more >>>>> reply where you deny this. >>>> >>>> But your criteria isn't a legal critieria. The "Behavior" of the >>>> input must be an objective property of just that input, and thus can >>>> not be something that depends on the decider looking at it. >>>> >>> >>> It must depend on the decider looking at it or we are required >>> to ignore the actual fact that DDD does call HHH in recursive >>> simulation. We are certainly not allowed to ignore any actual >>> facts. If you can't get that then it seems we may be done talking. >> >> >> Why do you say that? Yes, it males the problem harder (in fact in some >> cases impossible) but that is the rule. >> >> You seem to have a problem with the simple fact that some maps are >> just imposisble to compute. >> >> But that MUST be true as there is an order of infinity more maps than >> possible deciders, so most maps must not be computable. >> >> It CAN'T depend on the decider, because the maping it is computing is >> only based on the input, and that doesn't include the decider. >> > > OK so I quit. You insist that H must ignore the facts and that is > necessarily incorrect. Good bye. L IIIII A. RRRR L I A A. R R L I A A R R L I AAAAA RRRR L I A A R R L I A A R R LLLLL IIIII A A R R Where did I say H must "Ignore" the fact? NOWHERE. You are just falling back on your default mode which is to call someone a liar because they pointed out a fact you can't handle. Your brain tells you they must be lying as it doesn't match with the INCORRECT "facts" you have brainwashed yourself into believing/. It must get the right answer INSPITE of the problem that fact creates to be correct. You are just showing how utterly STUPID you are. ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========