Path: ...!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: Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise
Date: Wed, 29 May 2024 20:15:21 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 114
Message-ID: <v38jv9$1c8ir$4@dont-email.me>
References: <v3501h$lpnh$1@dont-email.me> <v362eu$2d367$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v363js$vg63$2@dont-email.me> <v36803$2d368$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v368je$100kd$3@dont-email.me> <v373mr$2d367$5@i2pn2.org>
 <v37bpa$15n0b$1@dont-email.me> <v37i9p$lls$1@news.muc.de>
 <87y17smqnq.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <v37sap$18mfo$1@dont-email.me>
 <v38eq4$2foi0$1@i2pn2.org> <v38fe0$1bndb$1@dont-email.me>
 <v38g31$2foi0$11@i2pn2.org> <v38gi5$1bndb$3@dont-email.me>
 <v38ici$2fohv$2@i2pn2.org> <v38j17$1c8ir$2@dont-email.me>
 <v38jgo$2foi0$14@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 30 May 2024 03:15:22 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0a722b73a14c6c7bef786c05822a9348";
	logging-data="1450587"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18gsk+GHxUVfHzdRxKCVCnR"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:OwXtZtkXGYxz/40c+9iim3zXuUw=
In-Reply-To: <v38jgo$2foi0$14@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6128

On 5/29/2024 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/29/24 8:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/29/2024 7:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/29/24 8:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/29/2024 7:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/29/24 7:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/29/2024 6:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/29/24 2:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/29/2024 1:14 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How about a bit of respect?  Mike specifically asked you not 
>>>>>>>>>> to cite his
>>>>>>>>>> name as a back up for your points.  Why do you keep doing it?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> He does it to try to rope more people in.  It's the same ploy as
>>>>>>>>> insulting people by name.  It's hard to ignore being maligned 
>>>>>>>>> in public
>>>>>>>>> by a fool.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Thanks for validating my simplified encoding of the Linz*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I really did believe that Ben Bacarisse was lying when I said it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> At the time I was talking about the easily verified fact of the 
>>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>>> execution trace of fully operational code and everyone was 
>>>>>>>> denying the
>>>>>>>> easily verified facts.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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       }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It turns out that two dozen people are easily proven wrong when
>>>>>>>> they claimed that the correct simulation of the input to H(D,D)
>>>>>>>> is the behavior of int main() { D(D); }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How is that?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When D is correctly simulated by H using an x86 emulator the only
>>>>>>>> way that the emulated D can reach its own emulated final state
>>>>>>>> at line 06 and halt is
>>>>>>>> (a) The x86 machine code of D is emulated incorrectly
>>>>>>>> (b) The x86 machine code of D is emulated in the wrong order
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which isn't a "Correct Simulation" by the definition that allow 
>>>>>>> the relating of a "Simulation" to the behavior of an input.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right the execution trace of D simulated by pure function H using
>>>>>> an x86 emulator must show that D cannot possibly reach its own
>>>>>> simulated final state and halt or the simulation of the machine
>>>>>> language of D is incorrect or in the wrong order.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, you aren't going to resolve the question but just keep up with 
>>>>> your contradiction that H is simulating a template (that doesn't 
>>>>> HAVE any instrucitons of H in it) but also DOES simulate those 
>>>>> non-existance instructions by LYING about what it does and 
>>>>> simulating a SPECIFIC instance that it LIES behaves just like 
>>>>> DIFFERENT specific instatces.
>>>>
>>>> I will give you the benefit of the doubt and call that an honest
>>>> misunderstanding. I have much more empathy for you now that I found
>>>> that Linz really did say words that you could construe as you did.
>>>>
>>>> The infinite set of every H/D pair specified by the template
>>>> where D is correctly simulated by pure simulator H or pure function
>>>> H never has any D reach its own simulated final state and halt.
>>>
>>> But the question ISN'T about the SIMULATED D, but about the behavior 
>>> of the actual PROGRAM/MACHINE D
>>>
>>> This seems to be your blind spot.
>>
>> ∃H  ∈ Turing_Machines
>> ∀x  ∈ Turing_Machines_Descriptions
>> ∀y  ∈ Finite_Strings
>> such that H(x,y) = Halts(x,y)
>>
>> Not really the above formalization does not can cannot
>> specify Turing Machines as the input to any decider H.
>>
> 
> Then what is x representing?

x <is> a finite string Turing machine description that SPECIFIES 
behavior. The term: "representing" is inaccurate.


-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer