Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.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: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_A_simulating_halt_decider_applied_to_the_The_Peter_?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?Linz_Turing_Machine_description_=E2=9F=A8=C4=A4=E2=9F=A9_--_key_d?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?etails?=
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2024 21:58:51 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 154
Message-ID: <v3l79s$13cp$7@dont-email.me>
References: <v2nsvh$1rd65$2@dont-email.me> <v331mf$84p2$1@dont-email.me>
 <v332ci$29def$2@i2pn2.org> <v33790$8u5p$1@dont-email.me>
 <v337r0$29dee$2@i2pn2.org> <v338c5$94g8$1@dont-email.me>
 <v339kr$29dee$3@i2pn2.org> <v33aj7$9f3u$1@dont-email.me>
 <v33bo5$29def$4@i2pn2.org> <v33dt7$dlnv$1@dont-email.me>
 <v33f6d$29dee$4@i2pn2.org> <v33g9j$e3ug$1@dont-email.me>
 <v33gss$29def$6@i2pn2.org> <v33hbf$e6qn$1@dont-email.me>
 <v34fg0$2bb65$2@i2pn2.org> <v36pgt$12lh7$1@dont-email.me>
 <v379la$159q4$2@dont-email.me> <v398hu$1j7to$1@dont-email.me>
 <v39ue9$1mtd9$3@dont-email.me> <v3chls$280e0$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3cqnm$29gdk$1@dont-email.me> <v3ek0l$2maau$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3fbme$2qsgd$1@dont-email.me> <v3fqkp$2o13h$7@i2pn2.org>
 <v3fsm0$2uah1$1@dont-email.me> <v3h7pv$38up4$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3hrlk$3bkv5$3@dont-email.me> <v3jt7u$3qf1g$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3kdbg$3stk9$4@dont-email.me> <v3kmo4$3umuf$1@dont-email.me>
 <cc67f0766be6e157114996e37910f7d60564e2c5.camel@gmail.com>
 <v3l20k$5d3$8@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2024 21:58:53 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4aa76005a7c4778429e99a66774e7ab2";
	logging-data="36249"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/DGXYFFMc5rRgTcNCTEYRX"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:5DRXd9STIerbajGTRmU0XcOMtLk=
In-Reply-To: <v3l20k$5d3$8@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 8835

Op 03.jun.2024 om 20:28 schreef olcott:
> On 6/3/2024 10:27 AM, wij wrote:
>> On Mon, 2024-06-03 at 18:16 +0300, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-06-03 12:36:00 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 6/3/2024 3:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-06-02 13:21:56 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/2/2024 2:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-06-01 19:26:55 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 6/1/2024 1:52 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Am Sat, 01 Jun 2024 09:37:01 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/2024 2:52 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-31 15:35:18 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *A quick summary of the reasoning provided below*
>>>>>>>>>>>> The LHS is behavior that embedded_H is allowed to report on.
>>>>>>>>>>> There is no restrictions on what embedded_H is allowed to 
>>>>>>>>>>> report on.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H is only allowed to report on the behavior that its 
>>>>>>>>>> finite
>>>>>>>>>> string Turing Machine Description specifies to a UTM.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H <is> a UTM except that it stops simulating and reports
>>>>>>>>>> non-halting as soon as it correctly recognizes a non-halting 
>>>>>>>>>> behavior
>>>>>>>>>> pattern that is specified by its input.
>>>>>>>>> "Except". So it is not an UTM.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (a) Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>> (b) Ĥ invokes embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>> (c) embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>> (d) simulated ⟨Ĥ⟩ copies its input ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>> (e) simulated ⟨Ĥ⟩ invokes simulated embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>> (f) simulated embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>> (g) goto (d)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H is not allowed to be applied to Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ because 
>>>>>>>>>> inputs can
>>>>>>>>>> only be finite strings and Ĥ is not a finite string. This means
>>>>>>>>>> that embedded_H is not allowed to report on its own actual 
>>>>>>>>>> behavior.
>>>>>>>>> I can't read that notation. What is H^ and what does it look like?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Here is the whole Linz proof*
>>>>>>>> I simplified the Linz notation at the bottom of page 2 of the 
>>>>>>>> proof.
>>>>>>>> https://www.liarparadox.org/Linz_Proof.pdf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are right, that is a sufficient proof. You may change the 
>>>>>>> presentation
>>>>>>> but then you must prove that your presentation is equivalent to 
>>>>>>> Linz'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The proof was removed until Joe could understand what Linz was saying
>>>>>> Here is my actual proof.
>>>>>
>>>>> Linz' proof is Linz' proof, not yours.
>>>>>
>>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>
>>>>> The above does not say what Linz said and hardly anything else, 
>>>>> either.
>>>>> It is not a sentence. If you remove the second last or the last line
>>>>> or add some conjunction between them and add a point to the end then
>>>>> you would have a sentence.
>>>>>
>>>>>> (a) Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>> (b) Ĥ invokes embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>> (c) embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>> (d) simulated ⟨Ĥ⟩ copies its input ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>> (e) simulated ⟨Ĥ⟩ invokes simulated embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>> (f) simulated embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>> (g) goto (d)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ derives a different result than
>>>>>> embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>
>>>>> Irrelevant as embedded_H is not a part of Linz' proof. The part
>>>>> of Linz' Ĥ that corresponds to your embedded_H does produce the
>>>>> same result as Linz H does.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.liarparadox.org/Linz_Proof.pdf top of page 3
>>>> Linz named his embedded_H "Ĥq0" and has input Wm Wm
>>>> because this is a second start state in the same machine
>>>> Ben agrees that the Linz notation is wrong.
>>>
>>> I don't know (and don't expect to find out with a reasonable effort)
>>> whay Linz uses the notation he uses. It does not really matter as
>>> the meaning is clear from the text. You may use a better notation if
>>> you know one but constructing a good notation is not easy. As a
>>> test case you may cosider pair of Turing machines that are otherwise
>>> identical but start at different states.
>>>
>>>>> Turns out that you can prove that the result produced by Linz' H is
>>>>> different from the result produced by linz' H. This is sufficient to
>>>>> prove that Linz' H does not exist.
>>>>>
>>>>>> This is because the in the latter case embedded_H must determine that
>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated by embedded_H cannot possibly stop 
>>>>>> running
>>>>>> after 1 to ∞ steps of correct simulation. Thus (as we can all see)
>>>>>> embedded_H meets its abort simulation criteria.
>>>>>
>>>>> Those criteria are not mentioned in Linz' proof and are therefore
>>>>> irrelevant to it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They are not mentioned because like everyone else Linz rejects
>>>> the notion of a simulating halt decider out-of-hand without review.
>>>
>>> The topic is halt deciders, not simulating halt deciders. If a
>>> simulating halt decider is a halt decider then eerything that
>>> is true about all halt deciders is true about all simulating
>>> halt deciders. The proof that the set of halt deciders is empty
>>> clearly prves the the set of simulating halt deciders is a
>>> subset of an empty set (or the empty set, as there is only one).
>>>
>>>> When you look for "simulating halt decider" or
>>>> "simulating termination analyzer" you only find me.
>>>
>>> Apparently people do not find subsets of the empty set
>>> very interessting.
>>>
>>
>> I think this may be one major reason olcott keeps repeating his claim.
>>
> 
> We cannot move on to the mathematics of this while everyone lies about 
> the arithmetic of it.
> 
> DD correctly simulated by HH does not halt. After you acknowledge
> the truth of this then we can move on to the next step that depends
> on this step as its basis.
> 

HH correctly simulated by itself does not halt. So HH is not halting 
according to your own criteria. After you acknowledge
the truth of this then we can move on to the next step that depends
on this step as its basis.
-- 
Paradoxes in the relation between Creator and creature.
<http://www.wirholt.nl/English>.