Deutsch   English   Français   Italiano  
<v3lo7l$3sil$1@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: Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway?
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2024 19:47:48 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 183
Message-ID: <v3lo7l$3sil$1@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: Tue, 04 Jun 2024 02:47:49 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e82f76cbf70c4c740fdbf97a3b1eefca";
	logging-data="127573"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19HAMxP+0XbbvJzOdA3Xs28"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:05ZW/XBplAZ9aPq4ZXHrsV1schM=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <lBmcnX-HlodbjMP7nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
Bytes: 8918

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.
> 
>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
> 

*Those were my verbatim words that professor Sipser agreed to*
All the people that tried to show how I misinterpreted my own words
utterly failed.

Those that claimed Professor Sipser understood my words differently than
I did had only one basis that I remember being presented that is easily
proven false. *They tried to get away with contradicting this*

DD correctly emulated by any HH that can possibly exist DOES NOT HALT
DD correctly emulated by any HH that can possibly exist DOES NOT HALT
DD correctly emulated by any HH that can possibly exist DOES NOT HALT

typedef int (*ptr)();  // ptr is pointer to int function in C
00       int HH(ptr p, ptr i);
01       int DD(ptr p)
02       {
03         int Halt_Status = HH(p, p);
04         if (Halt_Status)
05           HERE: goto HERE;
06         return Halt_Status;
07       }

_DD()
[00001c22] 55         push ebp
[00001c23] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
[00001c25] 51         push ecx
[00001c26] 8b4508     mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00001c29] 50         push eax        ; push DD 1c22
[00001c2a] 8b4d08     mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00001c2d] 51         push ecx        ; push DD 1c22
[00001c2e] e80ff7ffff call 00001342   ; call HH
[00001c33] 83c408     add esp,+08
[00001c36] 8945fc     mov [ebp-04],eax
[00001c39] 837dfc00   cmp dword [ebp-04],+00
[00001c3d] 7402       jz 00001c41
[00001c3f] ebfe       jmp 00001c3f
[00001c41] 8b45fc     mov eax,[ebp-04]
[00001c44] 8be5       mov esp,ebp
[00001c46] 5d         pop ebp
[00001c47] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0038) [00001c47]

> [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.
> 

After many extensive conversations with professor Hehner:
   His most relevant belief is that the halting problem cannot
   be solved because there is something wrong with it.

Professor Hehner: Yes, I would sign that statement.

*My concise summation of the error*
The way that the halting problem is conventionally understood is that H
must correctly answer yes or no to an input that contradicts both
answers, thus H is being asked a question isomorphic to the Liar
Paradox: Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is not true." ?

========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========