| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v3lcat$228t$3@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
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: Mike Terry Reply to Fred Zwarts Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2024 16:24:45 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 99 Message-ID: <v3lcat$228t$3@dont-email.me> References: <v3j20v$3gm10$2@dont-email.me> <J_CdnTaA96jxpcD7nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> <87h6eamkgf.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <v3kcdj$3stk9$1@dont-email.me> <v3l7uo$13cp$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 23:24:45 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f629d257ac302b24ac32e99a4ff4b1b3"; logging-data="67869"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18m1GKWC4dRNc+m5q0o6vnq" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:CnStUYhcvJuMJq8Zw5C6T7m9oRA= In-Reply-To: <v3l7uo$13cp$8@dont-email.me> Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 5281 On 6/3/2024 3:09 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: > Op 03.jun.2024 om 14:20 schreef olcott: >> On 6/3/2024 4:42 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes: >>> >>>> PO's D(D) halts, as illustrated in various traces that have been >>>> posted here. >>>> PO's H(D,D) returns 0 : [NOT halting] also as illustrated in various >>>> traces. >>>> i.e. exactly as the Linz proof claims. PO has acknowledged both these >>>> results. Same for the HH/DD variants. >>>> >>>> You might imagine that's the end of the matter - PO failed. :) >>>> >>>> That's right, but PO just carries on anyway! >>> >>> He has quite explicitly stated that false (0) is the correct result for >>> H(D,D) "even though D(D) halts". I am mystified why anyone continues to >>> discuss the matter until he equally explicitly repudiates that claim. >>> >> >> Deciders only compute the mapping *from their inputs* to their own >> accept or reject state. The correct emulation of the machine code input >> to H(DD,DD) requires DD emulated by HH to emulate each x86 instruction >> of the x86 machine code of DD correctly and in the correct order. >> >> *The input to HH(DD,DD) specifies non-halting behavior* >> >> The only way to cause DD emulated by HH to have the same behavior as >> the directly executed (non input) DD(DD) is to emulate the instructions >> specified by the machine code of DD incorrectly or in the incorrect >> order. *This is not the behavior that the input to HH(DD,DD) specifies* >> >> The behavior of the directly executed DD(DD) has different behavior >> than DD correctly emulated by HH. This is because the behavior of DD(DD) >> reaps the benefits of HH having already aborted its simulation. >> >> No one ever noticed that these two behaviors could ever diverge before >> because everyone rejected the notion of a simulating halt decider out- >> of-hand without review. >> >> >> >> Two PhD computer science professors that I have communicated with >> agree with me that there is something wrong with the halting problem. >> >> Bill Stoddart. *The Halting Paradox* >> 20 December 2017 >> https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340 >> arXiv:1906.05340 [cs.LO] >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> *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 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> >> >> >> >> *DD correctly simulated by HH would never stop running unless aborted* >> *We can see that the following DD cannot possibly halt when* >> *correctly simulated by every HH that can possibly exist* > > It is very clear that if the simulated HH would halt, then DD would > halt. So your claim comes down to HH not halting when simulating itself. > Mike Terry replied to this and explained it correctly as reply directly to you On 6/3/2024 12:36 PM, Mike Terry wrote: http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3CHlGdnbvc3Ly_YsD7nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d%40brightview.co.uk%3E -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer