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,sci.logic
Subject: Re: A computable function that reports on the behavior of its actual
 self is not allowed
Date: Mon, 13 May 2024 20:30:20 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v1ubas$v37v$10@i2pn2.org>
References: <v1r566$2uo21$1@dont-email.me> <v1rbmu$305vp$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1rcvn$qvg3$9@i2pn2.org> <v1rfcn$311mk$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1rggf$qvg3$10@i2pn2.org> <v1ripg$31n8h$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1sijr$t0gq$1@i2pn2.org> <v1t53i$3g3o3$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 00:30:20 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1019135"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v1t53i$3g3o3$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4305
Lines: 83

On 5/13/24 9:37 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/13/2024 3:22 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Sun, 12 May 2024 18:19:12 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 5/12/2024 5:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/12/24 6:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>
>>>>> No decider is ever allowed to report on its own behavior thus
>>>>> embedded_H as a simulating partial halt decider is NOT ALLOWED to
>>>>> report on the direct execution of Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ because this IS REPORTING ON
>>>>> ITS OWN BEHAVIOR.
>>>>
>>>> WHO SAYS THIS?
>>>
>>> A decider must compute the mapping from an input.
>>> Its actual self cannot possibly be an input.
>> Oh, it definitely can. It must decide for every machine, including
>> itself. How would you even detect that?
>>
>>> No decider takes an actual Turing machine as input thus no decider can
>>> possibly take its actual self as input.
>> Well, an encoding of one.
>>
> 
> That is not the same, as I show below the behavior of the executed
> Turing machine that contains the embedded partial halt decider is
> different than the behavior of its simulated Turing Machine description.

Then your simulator is BROKEN.

Note, you have NEVER been able to show what instruction CORRECTLY 
SIMULSTED by your simulator differed from the actual execution, so your 
statement is just proven to be a known LIE.


> 
> These two machines are one recursive simulation out-of-sync with each
> other This changes their behavior relative to each other.

Nope.

Try to show it.

> 
> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
> 
> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by embedded_H cannot possibly stop running
> unless aborted. Whereas the behavior of Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is AFTER the
> simulated input has already been aborted. These two are always
> out-of-sync whenever there is a pathological relationship
> between the partial halt decider and its input.

Excpet that statement is a "nonse" statement, as it is based on a 
condition that just doesn't happen. It doesn't matter what some other H^ 
using some other embedded_H does or doesn't do. What matters is what 
THIS H^ does

> 
> The behavior of the directly execution machine and the correct
> simulation of the machine description of this same machine is
> always exactly the same:
> *UNLESS THEY HAVE A PATHOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIP TO EACH OTHER*

Nope, just more of your lies.

Where is that in the DEFINITION of correct simulation?

You are just proving you don't care about the truth because you are just 
a pathological liar.

> 
>>> (a) The behavior of the directly executed Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is after embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ has already aborted its simulation.
>>>
>>> (b) The behavior of the simulated input to embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>> is before embedded_H has aborted its simulation.
>>>
>>> (c) These two behaviors (a) and (b) ARE NOT THE SAME. (a) will stop
>>> running on its own (b) will never stop running unless aborted.
>> Then they are either not the same machine, or simulated incorrectly.
>>
>