| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v3lscq$2uv04$15@i2pn2.org> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic Subject: Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway? Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2024 21:58:50 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <v3lscq$2uv04$15@i2pn2.org> 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> <v3ls46$4h2j$3@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2024 01:58:50 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="3111940"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 In-Reply-To: <v3ls46$4h2j$3@dont-email.me> Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 7981 Lines: 151 On 6/3/24 9:54 PM, olcott wrote: > 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. > What is strawman about it? I am just using the actual definitions that YOU like to ignore and make lies about.