Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<fd9ed0d85ddacd6f1ccd3b21fc17d7e85c95b5a5.camel@gmail.com> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> Newsgroups: sci.logic Subject: Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway? Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2024 09:06:17 +0800 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 76 Message-ID: <fd9ed0d85ddacd6f1ccd3b21fc17d7e85c95b5a5.camel@gmail.com> References: <v3j20v$3gm10$2@dont-email.me> <v3j320$2qu72$17@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2024 03:06:18 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="53ecd3a08a774183dc348db4349cad0c"; logging-data="3764614"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+TYbjWN/hbvkmNyqBTgEb0" User-Agent: Evolution 3.50.2 (3.50.2-1.fc39) Cancel-Lock: sha1:shfN7V8hQeJhiN87tJnIRimmdYI= In-Reply-To: <v3j320$2qu72$17@i2pn2.org> Bytes: 4055 On Sun, 2024-06-02 at 20:34 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/2/24 8:16 PM, immibis wrote: > > The halting problem says you can't find a Turing machine that tells=20 > > whether executing each other Turing machine will halt. Simulation has= =20 > > nothing to do with the question. >=20 > Because it looks like an out to solve the question. He doesn't actual=20 > seem to care about halting (which is why he is so ignorant about it) but= =20 > cares about the fact that the Halting Theorem (or pulling the same sort= =20 > of proof) can show so many other things can't be done in other fields. >=20 > There ARE some principles that allow the use of a certain type of=20 > simulation, that of the UTM which is defined to just recreate the=20 > behavior of the machined described, and a simple way to do that is to=20 > build a simulator. (UTMs are not actually defined by simulation, but by= =20 > results). >=20 > Olcott, in his typical method of playing with things he doesn't really= =20 > understand, things that by tweeking the rules on the simulation, he=20 > might be able to get something close enough to Halting and using a UTM,= =20 > that he can sneek his bad proof by, trying to replace the UTM simulation= =20 > forever to show non-halting to trying to invoke an "induction-like"=20 > infinte set of "related" machines to try to argue that his infinite set= =20 > of=C2=A0 "correct" (but partial) simulation is just as good the one infin= ite=20 > simulation in showing non-halting. >=20 > Not how he needs to keep things a bit undefined to avoid making the scam= =20 > to obvious, and blocking his shell game. >=20 > The key of the shell game is making an H that aborts simulating a=20 > machine using it, some how "equal" to a DIFFERN machine built on a=20 > DIFFERENT H that does simulate forever, and get stuck. >=20 > If he can make you think these to input are "the same" because they are= =20 > based things with the same name and doing things sort of the in the same= =20 > way, just one is finite and the other never halts, he can pull a=20 > switcher-roo and show that the input to his actual H, which does halt,= =20 > can be argued to not-halt as it was ok to swap it with the other machine. >=20 > Ultimately, this comes down to his H needs to change its behavior when= =20 > the "pathological machine" uses it, which is why his H^ uses an=20 > embedded_H instead of just a copy of H, so he can try to argue it could= =20 > be different. >=20 olcott's one POOH can prove anything from H(D,D)=3D0 is correct, H(D,D)=3D1= is correct, both 1/0 are correct, none is correct, the input is invalid, the D is fault,the HP is wrong...=C2=A0"the correct simulation of correct H= =C2=A0 determining the correct D is self-effident that POOH is totology, absolutel= y correct." All your effort just end up for him to find another execute. He is=C2=A0det= ermined to exhaust all possible excuse. I am predicting what the next excuse would = be.