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: What it would take...
Date: Sat, 10 May 2025 08:50:13 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <f89dc0db530aece64d0945b17d306cae9d24de67@i2pn2.org>
References: <vvm948$34h6g$2@dont-email.me>
 <d722a8886c52df233453d5e8f0d493f63399b3d3@i2pn2.org>
 <HfATP.667346$BFJ.317594@fx13.ams4>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 10 May 2025 13:21:23 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3945279"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <HfATP.667346$BFJ.317594@fx13.ams4>
Bytes: 3480
Lines: 52

On 5/10/25 12:04 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Fri, 09 May 2025 22:18:13 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
> 
>> On 5/9/25 9:11 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> The HHH code doesn't exactly invite confidence in its author, and his
>>> theory is all over the place, but a thought experiment suggests itself.
>>>
>>> If we were not all wasting our time bickering with a career bickerer...
>>> if we were to really /really/ try, could we patch up his case and send
>>> him on to his Turing Award? And if so, how?
>>>
>>> ISTR that there is suspected to be a theoretical window for him, so I
>>> suppose what I'm asking is what sort of boathook we would need to poke
>>> that window a little wider.
>>>
>>> Can he even get there from here? Evidence would suggest that simulation
>>> is a dead end unless he can find a way to get the simulated program to
>>> include its own simulation in its behaviour, which he has not yet
>>> managed to do - but /is/ there a way?
>>>
>>> Or could he abandon simulation completely and instead write a TM parser
>>> that builds an AST and walks it looking for evidence of terminating or
>>> looping? If he could, would that turn the trick?
>>>
>>> Or do we have a latter day Cantor waiting in the wings to close the
>>> window once and for all?
>>>
>>> Is there, in short, any way of putting out this un-halting flame war
>>> and turning this group to better use?
>>>
>>>
>> If he was willing to include the code for HHH in the input representing
>> DDD, then HHH would be able to atempt to correctly emulate this input.
>>
>> There have been methods put forward, that given an acceptace of the
>> detectability of DDD calling HHH, which can only be done it seems if we
>> make the system non-turing complete by saying that the input program and
>> the decider are put into the same memory space, and we are not allowed
>> to "copy" an algorithm to make a new copy, but only call the origianal
>> version so HHH can detect the recursion by reference to that address
>> that some versions of programs that do this "recursive simulation" can
>> be correctly decider (but not all, like the pathological version).
>>
>> In this method, the Decider detecting the recursion, tries emulating the
>> code in two parrallel branches based on both possible answers, and if
>> one branch matches the behavior of the answer, it can return that
>> answ3er.
> 
> Branching is my idea.
> 
> /Flibble

It existed prior.