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
Subject: Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's
 10/2022 analysis
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2024 20:38:05 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v4095d$39ri5$27@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> <v3vse5$3ao52$5@i2pn2.org>
 <v401dt$287qb$8@dont-email.me> <v404hd$3b1i8$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v4060h$2965i$5@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2024 00:38:05 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3468869"; 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: <v4060h$2965i$5@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3899
Lines: 53

On 6/7/24 7:44 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/7/2024 6:19 PM, joes wrote:
>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 17:26:05 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 6/7/2024 4:00 PM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 09:47:35 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> On 6/7/2024 1:30 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-06-06 15:31:36 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>> On 6/6/2024 10:14 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-06-06 13:53:58 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/6/2024 5:15 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-06-05 13:29:28 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 2:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-06-04 18:02:03 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> A simulating halt decider cannot report on what the behavior of a
>>>>> non-terminating input actually is because this would take forever.
>>>> Exactly. Didn't you say it is allowed to abort?
>>
>>>>> H is not allowed to report on any computation containing its actual
>>>>> self because Turing machines can only take finite string inputs thus
>>>>> cannot take Turing machines as inputs.
>>>> Bullshit. It can take other machines just fine. It doesn't know about
>>>> itself.
>>
>>> No actual Turing machine can be the input to any other actual Turing
>>> machine. Turing machines only take finite string inputs.
>> TMs can be encoded in a finite string.
>>
> 
> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
> 
> It turns out that the behavior of Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is verifiably different
> that the behavior of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated by embedded_H
> even if an expert in comp theory named Jesus told you otherwise.
> 

If can't be, amd be a correct simulation.

You just don't understand the DEFINITION of being correct.

> To overcome the religious belief that they are the same one must
> examine this at the x86 machine code level with complete understanding
> of the x86 machine code.
> 

SO do it, and tell us which is the first instruction where the direct 
exectuion of DD(DD) and the "correct simulation" of that input differ in 
results.

My guess is that it will be a non-simulated call to HH, where your 
"correct simulation" presumes incorrect behavior for the function.