Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.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 21:29:59 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 144
Message-ID: <v5fuf7$1up2o$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> <v5evoi$1lgoi$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5frvn$14bcm$6@i2pn2.org> <v5ft1p$1uc3o$2@dont-email.me>
 <v5fu24$14bcn$2@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 04:30:00 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="863b71206377856c10e8f571e9178830";
	logging-data="2057304"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+DsAcd8jZ02EET+EE6+Ior"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:tSetrVqvPCKc0hNZH96F41X47QI=
In-Reply-To: <v5fu24$14bcn$2@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 7467

On 6/25/2024 9:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> 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.
> 

Yes and everyone knows that computer scientists are much
more infallible than God thus cannot possibly ever make
a definition that is incoherent in ways that these 100%
infallible computer scientists never noticed.



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