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: Simulating termination analyzers for dummies
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2024 21:29:26 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 91
Message-ID: <v52oi7$2v5s6$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v4oaqu$f9p5$1@dont-email.me> <v4os9e$i70m$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4p9mb$lavj$1@dont-email.me> <v4pdph$l7lf$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4pepj$ln46$15@dont-email.me> <v4pgk3$l7le$2@dont-email.me>
 <v4phhl$mub6$2@dont-email.me> <v4piea$l7le$5@dont-email.me>
 <v4pmb8$nmvq$1@dont-email.me> <v4rekj$180pg$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4rv45$1blnm$1@dont-email.me> <v4s8k7$1dcrb$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4s9cj$1dk9i$1@dont-email.me> <v4sa6j$1dcrb$3@dont-email.me>
 <v4scfo$1eb2f$1@dont-email.me> <v4u3mr$1rrod$2@dont-email.me>
 <v4ukq9$1vpm0$2@dont-email.me> <v4vsqt$ggem$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v4vu1e$27o1c$1@dont-email.me> <v5019d$ggem$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v502jc$2ccjk$1@dont-email.me> <v503fg$ggen$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v503ur$2ccjk$2@dont-email.me> <v52bjh$jdea$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v52br1$2phm9$1@dont-email.me> <v52mig$jund$3@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 04:29:27 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d3e479354f6c59f79625e93d556f5bfb";
	logging-data="3118982"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19cCUdH46lFjKEXgGrXrzFs"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:TdzdTyIwvYow6Y0zzNC6R/m2dx8=
In-Reply-To: <v52mig$jund$3@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5600

On 6/20/2024 8:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/20/24 6:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/20/2024 5:48 PM, joes wrote:
>>> Am Wed, 19 Jun 2024 21:25:31 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>> On 6/19/2024 9:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/19/24 10:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/19/2024 8:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/19/24 8:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2024 7:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/24 9:00 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2024 3:08 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Op 18.jun.2024 om 18:26 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/18/2024 10:47 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 18.jun.2024 om 17:33 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/18/2024 10:20 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It is easier to understand because a print statement was added.
>>>>>>>>>>> You proved that it halts, but H0 reports non-halting.
>>>>>>>>>>> So, it produces a false negative.
>>>>>>>>>>> So, now it has been proved that H, H0, etc produce false
>>>>>>>>>>> negatives, when used to determine halting behaviour, please, 
>>>>>>>>>>> stop
>>>>>>>>>>> to call them halt-deciders, or termination-deciders.
>>>>>>>>>>> They might be "simulation deciders". When returning true, the
>>>>>>>>>>> simulation was correct, when false, the full simulation was not
>>>>>>>>>>> possible.
>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why does H0 NEED to be able to simulate its input?
>>> Yeah, why? That just adds a contradictory requirement. Not that it were
>>> possible otherwise.
>>>
>>>>>>>> Decider must compute the mapping from their finite string input to
>>>>>>>> the actual behavior that this finite string specifies.
>>> If possible.
>>>>>>>> They are not free to imagine the behavior that the authors of
>>>>>>>> textbooks expect.
>>> Nor crackpots.
>>>
>>>>>> The finite string input does not communicate the behavior that the
>>>>>> textbook authors expect it to communicate.
>>> Bullshit. Your neither-decider-nor-simulator just can't handle it.
>>> The direct execution of DDD is the measure of things. A simulation
>>> must behave identically. Of course you may be able to do analysis
>>> on whether it halts, but that's different. Simulation is dumb.
>>>
>>>>> The finite string certainly DOES communicate what is needed to
>>>>> determine the behavior, or it wasn't a correct representation.
>>> Deflection follows:
>>>> There is no sequence of truth preserving operations from the finite
>>>> string machine code of DDD that can correctly ignore the pathological
>>>> relationship between H0 and DDD as an aspect of the behavior that this
>>>> finite string specifies.
>>> Many other simulators or deciders work correctly with DDD, just not the
>>> one it calls. But they each get a different one wrong.
>>> What do you mean with "ignore the relationship"?
>>>
>>>> No one has noticed this before because no one ever thought to make 
>>>> every
>>>> single detail 100% concrete, thus leaving huge gaps in all prior
>>>> reasoning.
>>> We have a proof.
>>>
>>
>> You have dogmatic false assumptions.
>> It is an verified fact that the input to H(D,D) cannot
>> be mapped to the behavior of D(D).
> 
> 
> ????
> 
> But the Halting Function does that map.
> 

I ask you to show the detailed steps of that map and
you always dodge. This leads me to believe that you
know you are lying.

_DDD()
[00002093] 55               push ebp
[00002094] 8bec             mov ebp,esp
[00002096] 6893200000       push 00002093 ; push DDD
[0000209b] e853f4ffff       call 000014f3 ; call HH0
[000020a0] 83c404           add esp,+04
[000020a3] 5d               pop ebp
[000020a4] c3               ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [000020a4]

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer