Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!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: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway? --- woeful
 ignorance
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2024 14:26:04 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 156
Message-ID: <v3l5cc$tom$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v3j20v$3gm10$2@dont-email.me> <v3jt2s$3qblu$1@dont-email.me>
 <HlGdnbvc3Ly_YsD7nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <v3l0i0$5d3$2@dont-email.me>
 <lBmcnX-HlodbjMP7nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2024 21:26:05 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f629d257ac302b24ac32e99a4ff4b1b3";
	logging-data="30486"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+sIj80sSKsmsJ783A65TJQ"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:cNQDEZGnEv0WyZeHAEnco8NeQt8=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <lBmcnX-HlodbjMP7nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
Bytes: 8043

On 6/3/2024 1:56 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 03/06/2024 19:03, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/3/2024 12:36 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>> On 03/06/2024 08:58, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 03.jun.2024 om 02:16 schreef immibis:
>>>>> The halting problem says you can't find a Turing machine that tells 
>>>>> whether executing each other Turing machine will halt. Simulation 
>>>>> has nothing to do with the question.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe because by using simulation he can shift the attention from 
>>>> the pathological part of the Linz proof, to another halting problem, 
>>>> namely that a simulating decider does not halt because it causes 
>>>> infinite recursion.
>>>
>>> PO's simulating decider does not cause infinite recursion.  That only 
>>> occurs in the case where the decider performs a FULL simulation of 
>>> its input, whereas typically for PO his H/HH/... perform PARTIAL 
>>> simulations, where the decider monitors what is being simulated and 
>>> breaks off the simulation when a particular condition is observed.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for affirming that. You are my most technically
>> competent and honest reviewer.
>>
>>> So yes, there is recursive simulation, but not /infinite/ recursion 
>>> since at each level of simulation the simulator is free to just stop 
>>> simulating at any time.  In practice this means that the outer 
>>> simulator H will be the one to break out, since it will always be 
>>> ahead of all the inner simulations of H in how far it has 
>>> progressed.  This situation is in contrast with direct call 
>>> recursion, where the outer caller has no control to break the 
>>> recursion - it only regains control once the inner calls have all 
>>> returned.
>>>
>>> PO does not properly understand this distinction.
>>>
>>
>> *You can keep ignoring this that does not make it go away*
>>
>> On 10/13/2022 11:29:23 AM
>> MIT Professor Michael Sipser agreed 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>
>>
>> *You can ignore the above forever, that does not make it away*
> 
> I do not ignore the above.  I recently posted an example of it: a 
> simulating HD correctly reporting non-halting after detecting a tight 
> loop in the computation represented by its input.
> 
> The problem with the above is with YOU.  (You misinterpret/misapply what 
> Sipser says.)
> 
> And of course your entire purpose behind quoting the above is just an 
> appeal to authority.  You know that's a fallacy, because from time to 
> time you accuse others of doing it.
> 

I knew that these exact words were exactly correct about a year
before I asked professor Sipser to review them.

That you say that I misinterpret them without proving the reasoning
behind this give me no basis to correct your incorrect understanding.

So far I have shown the error of everyone that tried to explain
the details of how they believe that I misinterpreted my own words.

>>
>>>>
>>>> His own claim that D does not reach the pathological part (after 
>>>> line 03), displays already that the simulation is unable to process 
>>>> the pathological part. But the simulation introduces a new halting 
>>>> problem (recursive simulation), which he thinks is an answer for the 
>>>> original halting problem.
>>>
>>> You're using PO's phrase "pathological" but that is a bad 
>>> (misleading) term because it suggests there is something WRONG/BAD 
>>> (aka sick?) in the situation.  E.g. H processing input which is a 
>>> description of its own source code.  There is nothing whatsoever 
>>> wrong with that - it's just that PO gets confused by it and so argues 
>>> to ban it.  Perhaps there  is an alternative term that doesn't have 
>>> the deliberate connotation of "sickness".
>>>
>>> Mike.
>>>
>>
>> *Two PhD computer science professors disagree*
>>
>> E C R Hehner. *Problems with the Halting Problem*, COMPUTING2011 
>> Symposium on 75 years of Turing Machine and Lambda-Calculus, Karlsruhe 
>> Germany, invited, 2011 October 20-21; Advances in Computer Science and 
>> Engineering v.10 n.1 p.31-60, 2013
>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf
>>
>> E C R Hehner. *Objective and Subjective Specifications*
>> WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford.  2018 July 18.
>> See https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>
>> Bill Stoddart. *The Halting Paradox*
>> 20 December 2017
>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340
>> arXiv:1906.05340 [cs.LO]
>>
>> *You can ignore the above forever, that does not make it away*
>>
> 
> Well, it kinda DOES.  This is just a blatant appeal to authority on your 
> part, so it can rightly be ignored.  I'll say again - if you have some 
> argument to make, argue it yourself in your own words rather than 
> attempting to shut down discussion through appeal to authority.
> 

It proves that I am not a crackpot.

> [Perhaps Hehner/Stoddart are just idiots who got things wrong, or much 
> more likely you've completely misinterpreted what they're saying, or 
> you've misunderstood the context or whatever and you are the idiot.  The 
> bottom line is THEY ARE NOT HERE ARGUING ANY CASE SO WHAT YOU SAY THEY 
> BELIEVE IS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT.  And there's no need for anyone to get 
> into discussions over whether it is Hehner/Stoddart or yourself who is 
> confused...]
> 
> 
> Mike.
> 

The issue that I and professor Hehner agree on is that incorrect
questions have no correct answer only because the question itself
is incorrect. He does not call them incorrect questions.

The halting problem proof counter-example is essentially a question
that has the same form as the Liar Paradox when posed to a specific
machine. That this machine cannot answer this question is only because
both yes and no are the wrong answer from this machine.

The theory of computation is woefully ignorant of context in
linguistics, thus anchored in this woeful ignorance TOC simply
assumes that the context of who (which machine) is asked the
(halting) question is irrelevant.

Because of this woeful ignorance TOC does not notice that the
halting question about an input that does the opposite of whatever
value this machine returns is never construed as an incorrect question.

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