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: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's
 10/2022 analysis
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2024 11:28:48 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v3v8vg$39ri5$13@i2pn2.org>
References: <v3j20v$3gm10$2@dont-email.me>
 <J_CdnTaA96jxpcD7nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <87h6eamkgf.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <v3kcdj$3stk9$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3l7uo$13cp$8@dont-email.me> <v3lcat$228t$3@dont-email.me>
 <v3mq9j$chc3$1@dont-email.me> <v3mrli$chc4$1@dont-email.me>
 <_gWdnbwuZPJP2sL7nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <v3nkqr$h7f9$3@dont-email.me> <v3p4ka$sk6h$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3pp7p$v133$8@dont-email.me> <v3s27e$1f9kd$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3sf1n$1gra7$11@dont-email.me> <v3sjo9$1ialb$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3skoo$1iedv$1@dont-email.me> <v3u9ej$1v7rn$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3v6i7$23l33$1@dont-email.me> <v3v70o$21qlc$3@dont-email.me>
 <v3v7j8$242e9$2@dont-email.me> <v3v7qh$21qlc$4@dont-email.me>
 <v3v8f9$242e9$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2024 15:28:48 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3468869"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v3v8f9$242e9$3@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 5193
Lines: 95

On 6/7/24 11:20 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/7/2024 10:09 AM, Python wrote:
>> Le 07/06/2024 à 17:05, olcott a écrit :
>>> On 6/7/2024 9:55 AM, Python wrote:
>>>> Le 07/06/2024 à 16:47, olcott a écrit :
>>>>> ... Turing machines can only take finite string
>>>>> inputs thus cannot take Turing machines as inputs.
>>>>
>>>> WTF??? Since then a Turing machine cannot be represented
>>>> as a finite string?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Turing machines can take a finite string machine description
>>> of the computation that contains themselves they cannot
>>> the computation that actually contains themselves.
>>
>> You forgot a few verbs in your answer.
>>
>> Anyway, you're wrong : a Turing machine can take its own
>> description as part of its input, as it is finite.
>>
> 
> That is what I said. They cannot however take actual Turing machines
> as inputs it must always be a finite string machine description.

And thus they CAN be given inputs that represent themselves, or 
represent machines containing themselves as a sub-piece/.

So the DD that uses HH is valid (and will be a specific DD that contains 
a specific HH)

> 
>>> It anyone is paying 100% complete attention then they will
>>> see that the there is no correct rebuttal to the following.
>>>
>>> Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever
>>> stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH.
>>>
>>> _DD()
>>> [00001e12] 55         push ebp
>>> [00001e13] 8bec       mov  ebp,esp
>>> [00001e15] 51         push ecx
>>> [00001e16] 8b4508     mov  eax,[ebp+08]
>>> [00001e19] 50         push eax      ; push DD
>>> [00001e1a] 8b4d08     mov  ecx,[ebp+08]
>>> [00001e1d] 51         push ecx      ; push DD
>>> [00001e1e] e85ff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH
>>>
>>>
>>>>> The issue here is that I proved that DD correctly simulated
>>>>> by HH has different behavior than the directly executed
>>>>> DD(DD) and everyone's "rebuttal" to this proof is to simply
>>>>> ignore it.
>>>>
>>>> "correctly simulated" has "different than directly executed"
>>>>
>>>
>>> When you actually try to form a rebuttal of the above you will
>>> see that I am correct. So far everyone simply ignores the proof
>>> that I am correct as their only rebuttal.
>>
>> If you change the meaning of the word "correctly", sure :-)
>>
> 
> A {correct simulation} means that each instruction of
> the above x86 machine language of DD is correctly simulated
> by HH and simulated in the correct order.

Which means that it is unable to be used to show that the input doesn't 
meet the halting requirements, as it can't prove that the behavor after 
the simulation will never halt.

> 
> Anyone claiming that HH should report on the behavior
> of the directly executed DD(DD) is requiring a violation
> of the above definition of correct simulation.
> 

But what does that definition have to do with Halting?

That seems to be the piece you are missing. Halting is defined on the 
behavior of the machine described.

There IS a definition of simulation, that allows the transfer of the 
behavior of the machine to the simulation of it, but it is not the one 
you are trying to use.

THAT just shows you are trying to base your logic on the LIE that the 
two definitions are some how "equivalent", because you just don't seem 
to understand the concepts of reality and truth.

>>>> This is dementia at the higher degree.
>>
>>
>