Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise
Date: Fri, 31 May 2024 11:08:53 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 89
Message-ID: <v3c0il$256o0$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v3501h$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> <v38ogh$1grj4$1@dont-email.me> <v39fll$2grvb$2@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 31 May 2024 10:08:54 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="add4eb6e9b456b964993c963c59aa7fe";
	logging-data="2267904"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19STP3AvrNlbtBKGyH72lmQ"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:nlNil+0liDIieoY5mS1LEanYHuw=
Bytes: 5457

On 2024-05-30 09:08:05 +0000, joes said:

> Am Wed, 29 May 2024 21:32:49 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>> 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?
> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?
> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
> Or aborts prematurely.
> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
> 
>>>>>>>>> But the question ISN'T about the SIMULATED D, but about the
>>>>>>>>> behavior of the actual PROGRAM/MACHINE D
> Which should be the same.
>>>>>>>>> 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.
> What’s the difference?
> 
>>>>> 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).
> Then H is not a correct simulator.

Either that or the correct simulation of the x86 of D by pure function
H does not exists. If you ensure that H is not a pure functin or
that H never performs a correct simulation of D you can say whatever
you want about the impossible simulation, for example that it
is yellow.

-- 
Mikko