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 20:05:20 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 168
Message-ID: <v3lp8g$43oa$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>
 <v3lo7l$3sil$1@dont-email.me> <v3lots$2uv04$14@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2024 03:05:21 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e82f76cbf70c4c740fdbf97a3b1eefca";
	logging-data="134922"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+9b53AN4EsqDamdXgndQgD"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Z2BKqzVQxDXk3xRm+ZScwN3cygI=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v3lots$2uv04$14@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 8219

On 6/3/2024 7:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/3/24 8:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>> 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
> 
> It does.
> 
> Has been proven.
> 

*I say that you know you are a liar until after you show the steps*

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]


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