| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v5frvn$14bcm$6@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: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 21:47:35 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <v5frvn$14bcm$6@i2pn2.org> 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> <v5evoi$1lgoi$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 01:47:35 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="1191318"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 In-Reply-To: <v5evoi$1lgoi$1@dont-email.me> Bytes: 5692 Lines: 102 On 6/25/24 1:45 PM, olcott wrote: > 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 > > But only if the function is, in fact, computable. Since Halting isn't, you can't use that fact.