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 21:32:49 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 152
Message-ID: <v38ogh$1grj4$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v3501h$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> <v38lsl$1ggjs$1@dont-email.me>
 <v38o71$2foi0$17@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 04:32:50 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0a722b73a14c6c7bef786c05822a9348";
	logging-data="1601124"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX195koUdX65OXp1PH/NRwi6s"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:0e15ehSeKv0r8k2eR1+Mnsj9vEo=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v38o71$2foi0$17@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 7919

On 5/29/2024 9:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/29/24 9:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> 
> You need to define what you mean by "Indirection", because you aren't 
> using it in the normal manner.
> 

I have conclusively proven that the behavior of the correct
simulation of the x86 code of D by pure function H has
different behavior than the direct execution of D(D).

> A complete representation of the Turing Machine is NOT a level of 
> Indirection.
> 
> Using a "Name" to represent that full description, THAT would be 
> indirection.
> 
> The x86 code for your functions isn't a level of indirection from the 
> function itself.
> 
> A word with the address of the function would be.

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