Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<b393150191c6d78fc3033efb7c2fb993914ab53e@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: joes <noreply@example.org> Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Indirect Reference Changes the Behavior of DDD() relative to DDD emulated by HHH Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2024 08:19:18 -0000 (UTC) Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <b393150191c6d78fc3033efb7c2fb993914ab53e@i2pn2.org> References: <va104l$376ed$4@dont-email.me> <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> <vavdv4$11uqn$6@dont-email.me> <vavfjq$12m8t$3@dont-email.me> <vb1gqf$1f566$1@dont-email.me> <vb4fd0$2s0uc$2@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2024 08:19:18 -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: 8650 Lines: 120 Am Mon, 02 Sep 2024 08:42:56 -0500 schrieb olcott: > On 9/1/2024 5:48 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >> Op 31.aug.2024 om 18:15 schreef olcott: >>> On 8/31/2024 10:47 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>> Op 31.aug.2024 om 17:22 schreef olcott: >>>>> 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. >>> People that are not as stupid can see that HHH cannot wait for itself >>> to abort its own simulation. >> And people (except the stupid ones) can see that, because HHH cannot >> wait for itself, > Because this would require it to wait forever, > thus HHH knows that to meet its own requirement to halt it must abort > its simulation. And because HHH is simulating itself, the simulated HHH also aborts. >> this means that HHH failed to simulate itself correctly > As long as HHH emulates its input according to the semantics of the x86 > language HHH is correctly emulating this input even if this correct > emulation causes the computer to catch on fire. > AS I HAVE TOLD YOU FAR TOO MANY TIMES CORRECT EMULATION IS ENTIRELY > DETERMINED BY THE SEMANTICS OF THE X86 LANGUAGE. > When DDD calls HHH(DDD) then HHH must emulate itself emulating DDD. If > this causes the emulated HHH to never return THEN THIS EMULATION IS > STIPULATED TO BE CORRECT BY THE ONLY MEASURE OF CORRECT EMULATION, the > semantics of the x86 language. Useless stipulation. >> up to the end. HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly up to the >> end. > HHH cannot possibly correctly simulate itself to the end because the x86 > code of DDD and HHH specify that HHH cannot simulate itself to the end. > If HHH did simulate itself to the end then HHH WOULD BE WRONG. No simulator can simulate itself. -- 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.