Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong ---
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2024 20:53:54 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 95
Message-ID: <v3if43$3f51j$10@dont-email.me>
References: <v3501h$lpnh$1@dont-email.me> <v3bedb$22f8h$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3bfbm$2im01$3@i2pn2.org> <v3bg39$22o6m$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3cbhu$2k3ld$1@i2pn2.org> <v3clo2$28p7n$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3dft1$2lfup$1@i2pn2.org> <v3dhob$2dio8$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3dk0d$2lfup$2@i2pn2.org> <v3dkf2$2e2po$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3dmnc$2lfup$3@i2pn2.org> <v3do66$2ejq2$1@dont-email.me>
 <MPG.40c4fbcb474992459896fd@reader.eternal-september.org>
 <v3f9ha$2qh0t$1@dont-email.me> <v3ffpc$2n53n$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v3fgfb$2riae$2@dont-email.me> <v3fh1a$2n53o$5@i2pn2.org>
 <v3fhkr$2rsbs$2@dont-email.me> <v3fig4$2n53n$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v3fj8h$2rsbs$6@dont-email.me> <v3g0bg$2n53n$18@i2pn2.org>
 <v3g0n2$2v3lp$2@dont-email.me> <v3g329$2n53n$21@i2pn2.org>
 <v3g3np$2vk55$1@dont-email.me> <v3g7e9$2n53n$22@i2pn2.org>
 <v3g7r8$30c96$1@dont-email.me> <v3heeh$2psm0$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v3i1iv$3cpu7$8@dont-email.me> <v3ibmq$2r2f2$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v3icf8$3f830$1@dont-email.me> <v3ie2q$3f51j$6@dont-email.me>
 <v3ieeu$3f571$6@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2024 20:53:56 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7b2dfb52a2545f32ded9b03629a80d37";
	logging-data="3642419"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX183OcAAopeIeds0bIXm/H4f"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:9yLmDYI7+C0279FEzA76T5miFUk=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <v3ieeu$3f571$6@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5878

Op 02.jun.2024 om 20:42 schreef olcott:
> On 6/2/2024 1:36 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 02.jun.2024 om 20:08 schreef olcott:
>>> On 6/2/2024 12:55 PM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Sun, 02 Jun 2024 10:02:54 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> On 6/2/2024 4:36 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>> Am Sat, 01 Jun 2024 17:37:28 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>> On 6/1/2024 5:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/1/24 5:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/2024 4:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/24 4:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/2024 3:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/24 12:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/2024 11:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/24 12:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/2024 11:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/24 11:58 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/2024 10:46 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/24 10:00 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Every DD correctly simulated by any HH of the infinite set of 
>>>>>>>>> HH/DD
>>>>>>>>> pairs that match the above template never reaches past its own
>>>>>>>>> simulated line 03 in 1 to ∞ steps of correct simulation of DD 
>>>>>>>>> by HH.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But since the simulation was aborted,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *The above never mentions anything about any simulation being 
>>>>>>> aborted*
>>>>>> Not simulating an infinite number of steps of infinite recursion is
>>>>>> incorrect. You always forget this requirement: the simulation must be
>>>>>> complete.
>>>>>
>>>>> When HH correctly simulates N steps of DD it is incorrect to say that
>>>>> these N steps were incorrectly simulated.
>>>> The simulation is incorrect if it stops at that point and the simulated
>>>> machine is not in a final state, even if it was correct up to that 
>>>> point.
>>>> It also matters what steps where simulated, not only if each was 
>>>> correct.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Introduction to the Theory of Computation, by Michael Sipser
>>> https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-Michael-Sipser/dp/113318779X/
>>>
>>> On 10/13/2022 11:29:23 AM
>>> MIT Professor Michael Sipser agreed that this verbatim paragraph is 
>>> correct
>>> (He has neither reviewed nor agreed to anything else in this paper)
>>>
>>> <Professor Sipser agreed>
>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H 
>>> correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running 
>>> unless aborted then
>>>
>>> H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D specifies 
>>> a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>> </Professor Sipser agreed>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> What are the sets of HH and DD? I thought they were concrete 
>>>>>> machines.
>>>>>>
>>>>> The infinite set of every HH/DD pair where HH correctly simulates 1 or
>>>>> more steps of DD is the infinite set that I am referring to.
>>>> I see only a single DD. All H that stop simulating D before it 
>>>> reaches a
>>>> final state are already wrong.
>>>>
>>>
>>> There are an infinite number of different HH/DD pairs specified by that
>>> template. One class of them simulates N steps and one class of them
>>> simulates ∞ steps. Some of them play a game of bingo before simulating
>>> any steps. Some of them play a game of chess after simulating N steps.
>>>
>>> *IN NONE OF THESE CASES DOES DD CORRECTLY SIMULATED BY HH HALT*
>>>
>>
>> Similarly:
>>
>> *IN NONE OF THESE CASES DOES HH CORRECTLY SIMULATED BY HH HALT*
>>
> 
> *That is NEVER WAS any requirement*
> 

It was a requirement that HH would halt. A correct simulation of HH, 
therefore, should halt as well. It doesn't, which proves that either the 
simulation is wrong, or HH does not halt.

-- 
Paradoxes in the relation between Creator and creature.
<http://www.wirholt.nl/English>.