| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v3lu0d$2uv03$4@i2pn2.org> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!news.misty.com!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 22:26:21 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <v3lu0d$2uv03$4@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> <v3lscq$2uv04$15@i2pn2.org> <v3lt08$8gjv$1@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 02:26:21 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="3111939"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird In-Reply-To: <v3lt08$8gjv$1@dont-email.me> Content-Language: en-US X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Bytes: 9015 Lines: 175 On 6/3/24 10:09 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/3/2024 8:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> 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. > > You may condemn yourself to Hell by even asking that question. > I hope not. I myself wouldn't risk it. > I guess you think God hates people who bring out the Truth, What is wrong about asking someone to explain themselves? ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========