| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<f7f045c8c0e9cac680a4b8426d3fac859696966c@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 08:51:13 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <f7f045c8c0e9cac680a4b8426d3fac859696966c@i2pn2.org> References: <vb4plc$2tqeg$1@dont-email.me> <vb6o5t$3a95s$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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2024 12:51:13 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="1776465"; 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: <vbumr0$8crn$2@dont-email.me> Bytes: 14262 Lines: 313 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. >>>> >>> >>> Such a system can immediately call out the hired liars >>> of climate change by doing as I have have done directly >>> studying the raw data. >> >> So, PRESENT the actual data that LOGICLY PROVES what you claim. >> Remember, your claim is a logical proof from axioms, and axioms need >> to be the AGREED upon must be trues of the system. >> >> So, not this is the "best" answer, but this is the only possible >> answer no matter how strange of a case we might be in. ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========