| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v5i8v2$17ej1$1@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 Subject: Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 19:41:22 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <v5i8v2$17ej1$1@i2pn2.org> References: <v45tec$4q15$1@dont-email.me> <v4mnim$1qt6$6@dont-email.me> <v4onga$hjo3$3@dont-email.me> <v4pbg4$ln46$1@dont-email.me> <v4rdtp$18al3$1@dont-email.me> <v4rvil$1boeu$2@dont-email.me> <v4s9hj$1dnm7$1@dont-email.me> <v4sa0h$1dk9i$3@dont-email.me> <v4sci6$1ebce$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> <v5gk7m$22b20$1@dont-email.me> <v5h3aj$24jbd$5@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 23:41:22 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="1292897"; 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: <v5h3aj$24jbd$5@dont-email.me> Bytes: 9177 Lines: 174 On 6/26/24 8:58 AM, olcott wrote: > On 6/26/2024 3:41 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2024-06-26 02:29:59 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> 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. >> >> Actually, it is the opposite. Everybody, or at least all computer >> scientists and engineers, know that they, and all peaple, are fallible, >> at least when making programs and when inferring about programs. >> Therefore >> computer engineers demand that every program must be tested, and computer >> scinetists demand that every claim is proven. >> > > If this was true then everyone here would already know > that H(P,P) is not even being asked about the behavior > of the directly executed P(P). No, everyone, but it seems you and a few of your friends. understand the meaning of specifications are requirements. ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========