Path: ...!feed.opticnetworks.net!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: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved
 criteria is met
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 12:45:54 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 98
Message-ID: <v5evoi$1lgoi$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v45tec$4q15$1@dont-email.me> <v4sd35$1eb2f$5@dont-email.me>
 <v4u3jl$1se49$1@dont-email.me> <v4umvh$1vpm0$7@dont-email.me>
 <v50d8k$2e51s$1@dont-email.me> <v50dtp$2e5ij$1@dont-email.me>
 <v51f4t$2k8ar$1@dont-email.me> <v51ge4$2kbbe$2@dont-email.me>
 <v539bk$329sv$1@dont-email.me> <v53upb$35vak$6@dont-email.me>
 <v575pl$3sg5p$1@dont-email.me> <v5767s$3soh6$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5e28t$11urb$5@i2pn2.org> <v5eg03$1ikpr$2@dont-email.me>
 <v5eho7$24l4$1@news.muc.de> <87jzidm83f.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <v5el8c$24l4$4@news.muc.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 19:45:55 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="422dd2162c45ab1a09b084523bb5ca66";
	logging-data="1753874"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+NwSYelqJzTqp4DCZMbkPz"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:wIWc0/mPOp8DIA88z5S2K0gKEvI=
In-Reply-To: <v5el8c$24l4$4@news.muc.de>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5583

On 6/25/2024 9:46 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> Hi, Ben.
> 
> Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
>> Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes:
> 
>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 6/25/2024 4:22 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>> Am Sat, 22 Jun 2024 13:47:24 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>> On 6/22/2024 1:39 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>> Op 21.jun.2024 om 15:21 schreef olcott:
> 
>>>>>> When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct emulation is the
>>>>>> semantics of the x86 programming language then we see that when DDD is
>>>>>> correctly emulated by H0 that its call to H0(DDD) cannot possibly
>>>>>> return.
>>>>> Yes. Which is wrong, because H0 should terminate.
> 
>>> [ .... ]
> 
>>>> The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated
>>>> by H0 cannot possibly return.
> 
>>>> Until you acknowledge this is true, this is the
>>>> only thing that I am willing to talk to you about.
> 
>>> I think you are talking at cross purposes.  Joes's point is that H0
>>> should terminate because it's a decider.  You're saying that when H0 is
>>> "correctly" emulating, it won't terminate.  I don't recall seeing anybody
>>> arguing against that.
> 
>>> So you're saying, in effect, H0 is not a decider.  I don't think anybody
>>> else would argue against that, either.
> 
>> He's been making exactly the same nonsense argument for years.  It
>> became crystal clear a little over three years ago when he made the
>> mistake of posting the pseudo-code for H -- a step by step simulator
>> that stopped simulating (famously on line 15) when some pattern was
>> detected.  He declared false (not halting) to be the correct result for
>> the halting computation H(H_Hat(), H_Hat()) because of what H(H_Hat(),
>> H_Hat()) would do "if line 15 were commented out"!
> 
>> PO does occasionally make it clear what the shell game is.
> 
> I think it's important for (relative) newcomers to the newsgroup to
> become aware of this.  Each one of them is trying to help PO improve his
> level of learning.  They will eventually give up, as you and I have
> done, recognising (as Mike Terry, in particular, has done) that
> enriching PO's intellect is a quite impossible task.
> 
> What's the betting he'll respond to this post with his usual short
> sequence of x86 assembly code together with a demand to recognise
> something or other as non-terminating?
> 
>> -- 
>> Ben.
> 

<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
     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.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>

On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
 > I don't think that is the shell game. PO really /has/ an H
 > (it's trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines
 > that P(P) *would* never stop running *unless* aborted.
 >
 > He knows and accepts that P(P) actually does stop. The
 > wrong answer is justified by what would happen if H
 > (and hence a different P) where not what they actually are.
 >

Ben thinks that I tricked professor Sipser into agreeing
with something that he did not fully understand.

*The real issue is that no one here sufficiently understands*
*the highlighted portion of the following definition*

Computable functions are the formalized analogue of the
intuitive notion of algorithms, in the sense that a
function is computable if there exists an algorithm
that can do the job of the function, i.e.

*given an input of the function domain*
*it can return the corresponding output*

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function


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