Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Philosophy of Computation: Three seem to agree how emulating
 termination analyzers are supposed to work
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2024 19:06:26 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <ed90976d73f20c2764c159ec03b27b3db0ecddae@i2pn2.org>
References: <vgr1gs$hc36$1@dont-email.me>
 <114d7d0cb5266295ec2c9e9097158d78e5f51dea@i2pn2.org>
 <vgr9i1$ikr6$1@dont-email.me>
 <06be2ab9cc3801f1b97e9000ce0150aa4a88b520@i2pn2.org>
 <vgrf2h$jtb3$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2024 00:06:27 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1889851"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vgrf2h$jtb3$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4091
Lines: 70

On 11/10/24 6:19 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/10/2024 4:53 PM, joes wrote:
>> Am Sun, 10 Nov 2024 15:45:37 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 11/10/2024 3:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 11/10/24 2:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>
>>>>> 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
>>>> Right, if the correct (and thus complete) emulation of this precise
>>>> input would not halt.
>>> That is what I have been saying for years.
>> If.
>>
>>>>> 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>
>>>> Which your H doesn't do.
>>> It is a matter of objective fact H does abort its emulation and it does
>>> reject its input D as non-halting.
> 
>> And then it returns to the D that called it, which then halts anyway.
> 
> Maybe you are not as smart as ChatGPT.
> ChatGPT cannot be convinced that HHH was not correct
> to reject DDD as non-halting and explains in its own
> words why the fact that DDD halts does not change this.

Sure it can. I did it, when I gave it a CORRECT description of the 
problem, it admits that your criteria for HHH is incorrect, and DDD does 
halt and HHH should have reported Halting.

> 
> ChatGPT
> Simplified Analogy:
> Think of HHH as a "watchdog" that steps in during real execution
> to stop DDD() from running forever. But when HHH simulates DDD(),
> it's analyzing an "idealized" version of DDD() where nothing stops the
> recursion. In the simulation, DDD() is seen as endlessly recursive, so
> HHH concludes that it would not halt without external intervention.

Which has several lies in it, so makes your proof invalid.

> 
> https://chatgpt.com/share/67158ec6-3398-8011-98d1-41198baa29f2
> This link is live so you can try to convince ChatGPT that its wrong.
> 
> DDD emulated by HHH has different behavior than DDD emulated
> by HHH1 and it is becoming psychotic to keep ignoring this.
> 

No, a correct emulation of ANY program will be the same no matter what 
emulator looks at it.

Some may only be able to give partial emulation.

You are shown you don't actually beleive your claim, as you have failed 
to even TRY to refute the argument that they are the same, as you can't 
show what the first instruction that was actually correctly emulated 
differed in behavior.

If no instruction showed a different behavior, you can't claim them to 
be different.

Calling too things that are the same as different is just a lie.

And saying a partial trace that exactly matches the complete trace shows 
evidence that it will be different is also just a lie.

Sorry, but that IS the facts, even if you don't like them, don't believe 
them, or can't understand them.