Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_A_simulating_halt_decider_applied_to_the_The_Peter_?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?Linz_Turing_Machine_description_=E2=9F=A8=C4=A4=E2=9F=A9?=
Date: Mon, 27 May 2024 20:04:37 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 211
Message-ID: <v33aj7$9f3u$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v2nsvh$1rd65$2@dont-email.me> <v2vpt6$3g0m3$3@dont-email.me>
 <v2vqou$26570$5@i2pn2.org> <v2vrcl$3gakv$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2vslp$26570$6@i2pn2.org> <v301m6$3hcgb$1@dont-email.me>
 <v305j9$26571$1@i2pn2.org> <v30e5l$3lerc$1@dont-email.me>
 <v30fbr$26570$9@i2pn2.org> <v30hiq$3lv80$1@dont-email.me>
 <v30jb5$26571$2@i2pn2.org> <v30pr8$3r67p$1@dont-email.me>
 <v30rvv$3riij$1@dont-email.me> <v30t8u$26571$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v30u04$3rour$1@dont-email.me> <v30upc$26571$7@i2pn2.org>
 <v30vp3$3s4od$1@dont-email.me> <v321o0$28n58$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v3255k$2pkb$2@dont-email.me> <v326fd$28n59$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v327h8$3a17$1@dont-email.me> <v328l1$28n58$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v329t8$3mh0$2@dont-email.me> <v32ait$28n58$4@i2pn2.org>
 <v32bvc$48pj$1@dont-email.me> <v32cko$2937i$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v32nsa$6fo3$1@dont-email.me> <v32tfs$29dee$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v331mf$84p2$1@dont-email.me> <v332ci$29def$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v33790$8u5p$1@dont-email.me> <v337r0$29dee$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v338c5$94g8$1@dont-email.me> <v339kr$29dee$3@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 28 May 2024 03:04:39 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="62ab2bf33c274f123184493b42753dfc";
	logging-data="310398"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19vFHcusIj0YXCn1HRlzOWn"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:iLtUoDSHpBORyDydXTJsY/E4GOg=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v339kr$29dee$3@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 10690

On 5/27/2024 7:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/27/24 8:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/27/2024 7:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/27/24 8:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/27/2024 5:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/27/24 6:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/27/2024 4:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/27/24 3:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/27/2024 11:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/27/24 12:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/27/2024 10:58 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/27/24 11:46 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/27/2024 10:25 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/27/24 11:06 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> typedef int (*ptr)();  // ptr is pointer to int function in C
>>>>>>>>>>>> 00       int H(ptr p, ptr i);
>>>>>>>>>>>> 01       int D(ptr p)
>>>>>>>>>>>> 02       {
>>>>>>>>>>>> 03         int Halt_Status = H(p, p);
>>>>>>>>>>>> 04         if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>>>>>> 05           HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>>>> 06         return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>>>>>> 07       }
>>>>>>>>>>>> 08
>>>>>>>>>>>> 09       int main()
>>>>>>>>>>>> 10       {
>>>>>>>>>>>> 11         H(D,D);
>>>>>>>>>>>> 12         return 0;
>>>>>>>>>>>> 13       }
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The above template refers to an infinite set of H/D pairs 
>>>>>>>>>>>> where D is
>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly simulated by either pure simulator H or pure 
>>>>>>>>>>>> function H. This
>>>>>>>>>>>> was done because many reviewers used the shell game ploy to 
>>>>>>>>>>>> endlessly
>>>>>>>>>>>> switch which H/D pair was being referred to.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *Correct Simulation Defined*
>>>>>>>>>>>>     This is provided because many reviewers had a different 
>>>>>>>>>>>> notion of
>>>>>>>>>>>>     correct simulation that diverges from this notion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>     A simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly emulates 1 
>>>>>>>>>>>> to N of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>     x86 instructions of D in the order specified by the x86 
>>>>>>>>>>>> instructions
>>>>>>>>>>>>     of D. This may include M recursive emulations of H 
>>>>>>>>>>>> emulating itself
>>>>>>>>>>>>     emulating D.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And how do you apply that to a TEMPLATE that doesn't define 
>>>>>>>>>>> what a call H means (as it could be any of the infinite set 
>>>>>>>>>>> of Hs that you can instantiate the template on)?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *Somehow we got off track of the subject of this thread*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I note that YOU keep on switching between your C program and 
>>>>>>>>> Turing Machines.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Note, per the implications that you implicitly agreed to (by 
>>>>>>>>> not even trying to refute) the two systems are NOT equivalents 
>>>>>>>>> of each other.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (1) I think you are wrong. I have not seen any of your
>>>>>>>> reasoning that was not anchored in false assumptions.
>>>>>>>> Your make fake rebuttal is to change the subject.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (2) It does not matter my proof is anchored in the Linz
>>>>>>>> proof and the H/D pairs are only used to have a 100% concrete
>>>>>>>> basis to perfectly anchor things such as the correct meaning
>>>>>>>> of D correctly simulated by H so that people cannot get away
>>>>>>>> with claiming that an incorrect simulation is correct.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> int main() { D(D); } IS NOT THE BEHAVIOR OF D CORRECTLY 
>>>>>>>> SIMULATED BY H.
>>>>>>>> One cannot simply ignore the pathological relationship between H 
>>>>>>>> and D.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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 copies its own Turing machine description: ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>   then invokes embedded_H that simulates ⟨Ĥ⟩ with ⟨Ĥ⟩ as input.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For the purposes of the above analysis we hypothesize that
>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H is either a UTM or a UTM that has been adapted
>>>>>>>>>> to stop simulating after a finite number of steps of simulation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And what you do mean by that?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Do you hypothesize that the original H was just a pure UTM,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The original proof does not consider the notion of a simulating
>>>>>>>> halt decider so I have to begin the proof at an earlier stage
>>>>>>>> than any definition of H.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The biggest problem is that the input to the Turing machine 
>>>>>>> decider H is the description of a Turing Machine H^, which is a 
>>>>>>> SPECIFIC machine, 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When you say "specific machine" you don't mean anything like a
>>>>>> 100% completely specified sequence of state transitions encoded
>>>>>> as a single unique finite string.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mostly.
>>>>>
>>>>> There doesn't need to be a unique finite string, but it is a 100% 
>>>>> completely specified state transition/tape operation table.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>
>>>> In other words Linz did not prove that there are no set
>>>> of state transitions specified by ⊢* that derives the
>>>> correct halt status of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>
>>>> He only said there there is one specific machine that
>>>> gets the wrong answer.
>>>>
>>>
>>> He STARTS with a proof that one specific (but arbitrary) machine gets 
>>> the wrong answer.
>>>
>>> Then he shows that the same proof can be applied to ANY such machine 
>>> (becaue the proof didn't depend on any specific details of the 
>>> machine, just the general properties of that machine)
>>>
>>> I guess you don't understand how to do categorical proofs.
>>>
>>
>> I totally do. Can you please write down the
>> "completely specified state transition/tape operation table."
>> of this specific (thus uniquely identifiable) machine I would
>> really like to see it.
>>
> 
> But it was proven that no such machine exists!
> 
> Remember, the proof starts with the hypothetical that such a machine 
> exists. Such a machine WOULD HAVE a completely specified state 
> transition/tape operation table.
> 

That is not what you said.
 >>>>> There doesn't need to be a unique finite string, but it is a 100%
 >>>>> completely specified state transition/tape operation table.

"a 100% completely specified state transition/tape operation table"
of a non-existent machine.

> (The fact you ask the question means you don't understand the method of 
> proof).
> 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========