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 20:48:05 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 126
Message-ID: <v38lsl$1ggjs$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v3501h$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> <v38jv9$1c8ir$4@dont-email.me>
 <v38kh7$2foi0$15@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 03:48:06 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0a722b73a14c6c7bef786c05822a9348";
	logging-data="1589884"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX199T1yJTk53g1gxivDJE8Dh"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:k+Mo5SMvFA+vGT/kUG2kkN1xT6Y=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v38kh7$2foi0$15@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 6845

On 5/29/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/29/24 9:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> 
> No, it specifies the machine, and thus, though that, the behavior.
> 

If we assume that a decider takes an actual Turing machine as its
input that is correct otherwise that is one level of indirection
away from what we are really looking at.

The people have perpetuated this mistake for many decades never
actually made it not a mistake.

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