| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v3ls46$4h2j$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: Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway? Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2024 20:54:14 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 149 Message-ID: <v3ls46$4h2j$3@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> <v3lp8g$43oa$2@dont-email.me> <v3lrh9$2uv03$2@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 03:54:15 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e82f76cbf70c4c740fdbf97a3b1eefca"; logging-data="148563"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+x0865hQe6UqQ5TkCUshz7" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:QSiYivGJtBHvUzbA/8Sk2LIuLOE= In-Reply-To: <v3lrh9$2uv03$2@i2pn2.org> Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 7865 On 6/3/2024 8:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/3/24 9:05 PM, olcott wrote: >> 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* > > DD will halt (Remember, I am not saying the somulaiton by HH, but that > DD itself will halt). > That IS the strawman deception that might possibly (I hope not) get you condemned to Hell. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer