| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v5gsfv$15l89$2@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: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 07:02:23 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <v5gsfv$15l89$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> <v5fu24$14bcn$2@i2pn2.org> <v5fuf7$1up2o$1@dont-email.me> <v5fvvk$14bcn$4@i2pn2.org> <v5g1ue$1v8bm$2@dont-email.me> <v5g29u$14bcm$11@i2pn2.org> <v5g2nd$1v8bm$4@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 11:02:23 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="1234185"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <v5g2nd$1v8bm$4@dont-email.me> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Bytes: 10025 Lines: 202 On 6/25/24 11:42 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/25/2024 10:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/25/24 11:29 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/25/2024 9:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> 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, >>> >>> In a way that your limited understanding can comprehend. >>> You are so sure that I must be wrong that you cannot possibly >>> pay close enough attention to the exact words that I say. >>> >>> My point is entirely proven by how a set of finite string >>> transformations map one finite string to another. >> ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========