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: The philosophy of computation reformulates existing ideas on a
 new basis ---
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2024 13:20:11 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <f2a8c9b592f68732a079819dde95e29d6a1fd50c@i2pn2.org>
References: <vfli1h$fj8s$1@dont-email.me> <vflue8$3nvp8$2@i2pn2.org>
 <vfmd8m$k2m7$1@dont-email.me>
 <bcd82d9f8a987d3884220c0df7b8f7204cb9de3e@i2pn2.org>
 <vfmueh$mqn9$1@dont-email.me>
 <ff039b922cabbb6d44f90aa71a52d8c2f446b6ab@i2pn2.org>
 <vfo95k$11qs1$1@dont-email.me> <vfp8c0$3tobi$2@i2pn2.org>
 <vfpbtq$1837o$2@dont-email.me> <vfq4h9$1fo1n$1@dont-email.me>
 <vfqrro$1jg6i$1@dont-email.me> <vfvnbk$2lj5i$1@dont-email.me>
 <vfvudo$2mcse$5@dont-email.me> <vg2c7p$379h1$1@dont-email.me>
 <vg2hei$37lpn$8@dont-email.me> <vg5030$3oo1p$1@dont-email.me>
 <vg56vn$3pnvp$2@dont-email.me> <vg7pab$bqa3$1@dont-email.me>
 <vg81v7$d0a1$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2024 18:20:11 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="786503"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vg81v7$d0a1$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 9803
Lines: 200

On 11/3/24 9:39 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/3/2024 6:11 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-11-02 12:46:47 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 11/2/2024 5:49 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-11-01 12:26:58 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 11/1/2024 5:58 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-10-31 12:50:00 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/31/2024 5:49 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-10-29 14:35:34 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 10/29/2024 2:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-10-29 00:57:30 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/28/2024 6:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/28/24 11:04 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/28/2024 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The machine being used to compute the Halting Function has 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> taken a finite string description, the Halting Function 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself always took a Turing Machine,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is incorrect. It has always been the finite string 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Turing Machine
>>>>>>>>>>>>> description of a Turing machine is the input to the halt 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are always been a distinction between the abstraction 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> encoding.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, read the problem you have quoted in the past.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ultimately I trust Linz the most on this:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> the problem is: given the description of a Turing machine
>>>>>>>>>>> M and an input w, does M, when started in the initial
>>>>>>>>>>> configuration qow, perform a computation that eventually halts?
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP_317-320.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Linz also makes sure to ignore that the behavior of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>> correctly simulated by embedded_H cannot possibly reach
>>>>>>>>>>> either ⟨Ĥ.qy⟩ or ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩ because like everyone else he rejects
>>>>>>>>>>> simulation out of hand:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We cannot find the answer by simulating the action of M on w,
>>>>>>>>>>> say by performing it on a universal Turing machine, because
>>>>>>>>>>> there is no limit on the length of the computation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That statement does not fully reject simulation but is correct in
>>>>>>>>>> the observation that non-halting cannot be determied in finite 
>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>> by a complete simulation so someting else is needed instead of or
>>>>>>>>>> in addition to a partial simulation. Linz does include 
>>>>>>>>>> simulationg
>>>>>>>>>> Turing machines in his proof that no Turing machine is a halt 
>>>>>>>>>> decider.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *That people fail to agree with this and also fail to*
>>>>>>>>> *correctly point out any error seems to indicate dishonestly*
>>>>>>>>> *or lack of technical competence*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> DDD emulated by HHH according to the semantics of the x86
>>>>>>>>> language cannot possibly reach its own "return" instruction
>>>>>>>>> whether or not any HHH ever aborts its emulation of DDD.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - irrelevant
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 100% perfectly relevant within the philosophy of computation
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Probably but not to anything quoted above.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *THE TITLE OF THIS THREAD*
>>>>>>> [The philosophy of computation reformulates existing ideas on a 
>>>>>>> new basis ---]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - couterfactual
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can baselessly claim that verified facts are counter-factual
>>>>>>> you cannot show this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your statement was about a situation where "people fail to agree with
>>>>>> this and also fail to correctly point out any error". But that 
>>>>>> situation
>>>>>> has not happened as people have identified your errors (perhaps 
>>>>>> not all
>>>>>> but at least sufficiently many).
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Inconsistent with the currently received view is
>>>>> certainly not the slightest trace of any error when
>>>>> examined within the philosophy of computation.
>>>>
>>>>> It has always seemed quite ridiculous to me that everyone
>>>>> here consistently construes the currently received view
>>>>> as inherently infallible.
>>>>
>>>> The currently received view that if you are asked "What is 5 + 6?"
>>>> then only an answer that tells what 5 + 6 is is correct is infallible.
>>>
>>> This is simple enough that people cannot be confused.
>>> That 5 + 6 == 11 does seem infallibly true.
>>
>> So even you can make the ridiculous mistake to regard the currently
>> received view as infallible?
>>
>>>>> They call me stupid and ignorant for not accepting the currently
>>>>> received view as inherently infallible.
>>>>
>>>> You are stupid if you regard your own view as infallible. If you
>>>> regard something that has been tested and found good as infallible
>>>> then the risk of error can be small enough.
>>>
>>> I have known that equating believable with true is an error
>>> a great consequence ever since I was 14.
>>>
>>> It seems clear that halt deciders must compute the mapping
>>> from their input finite strings to the actual behavior
>>> specified by these finite strings.
>>
>> It is not clear at all unless you specify how those finite
>> strings specify the actual behaviour. 
> 
> That is why I used to fully defined semantics of the x86
> language to make this 100% perfectly unequivocal.
> 
> A few lines of x86 code express complex algorithms
> succinctly enough that human minds are not totally
> overwhelmed by far too much tedious detail.
> 
>> It is not pspecified
>> in the usual formulation of the problem. Also note that
>> the behaviour exists before those strings so "describe"
>> should be and usually is used instead of "specify". The
>> use of latter may give the false impression that the behaviour
>> is determined by those strings.
>>
> 
> In order for any machine to compute the mapping from
> a finite string it must to so entirely on the basis
> of the actual finite string and its specified semantics.

You have that somewhat backwards. It *CAN* only do what it can compute.

The mapping is not required to *BE* computable.

> 
> The finite string input to HHH specifies that HHH
> MUST EMULATE ITSELF emulating DDD.

Right, and it must CORRECTLY determine what an unbounded emulation of 
that input would do, even if its own programming only lets it emulate a 
part of that.

> 
> The finite string input to HHH1 specifies that HHH1
> MUST NOT EMULATE ITSELF emulating DDD.

But the semantics of the string haven't changed, as the string needs to 
contain all the details of how the machine it is looking at will work.

========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========