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 22:23:00 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v5fu24$14bcn$2@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>
 <v5frvn$14bcm$6@i2pn2.org> <v5ft1p$1uc3o$2@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 02:23:00 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1191319"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v5ft1p$1uc3o$2@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6775
Lines: 131

On 6/25/24 10:05 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/25/2024 8:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> If I ask you: What time is it?
> and you do not tell me the answer to the question hidden
> in my mind "What did you have for dinner?" We cannot say
> that you provided the wrong answer when you tell me what
> time it is.

Because I answered the actual question.

Just like the "Halt Decider" needs to answer the "Halt Decider Question" 
and not answer about POOP.

> 
> When we ask H to tell us whether its actual input halts
> H can only answer that P correctly simulated by H will not halt.
> H cannot answer the question hidden in your mind.
> 

Then you are just admitting that it can't be a Halt Decider.

If it isn't what the definition requires, it just isn't one.