| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v5fvvk$14bcn$4@i2pn2.org> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!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 22:55:48 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <v5fvvk$14bcn$4@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> <v5fu24$14bcn$2@i2pn2.org> <v5fuf7$1up2o$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 02:55:48 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="1191319"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <v5fuf7$1up2o$1@dont-email.me> Bytes: 7584 Lines: 147 On 6/25/24 10:29 PM, olcott wrote: > 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. > Except you can't show that the definition IS incoherent, just that *YOU* can't understand it. That is YOUR problem, not the problem of the definition.