| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v5k5ko$2qsdr$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 11:56:56 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 209 Message-ID: <v5k5ko$2qsdr$1@dont-email.me> References: <v45tec$4q15$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> <v5j4p0$2ksq3$1@dont-email.me> <v5jrrq$2o58l$4@dont-email.me> <v5k0ru$2q29e$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 18:56:57 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d7b6b7ddfe8775f34f568700240d9d1b"; logging-data="2978235"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19U70DFB56bH1tRz3X96KKR" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:Ah/lzaJ/rss5CB2yvBifW1gTBUM= In-Reply-To: <v5k0ru$2q29e$1@dont-email.me> Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 10707 On 6/27/2024 10:35 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2024-06-27 14:10:02 +0000, olcott said: > >> On 6/27/2024 2:36 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 2024-06-26 12:58:59 +0000, olcott said: >>> >>>> 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, ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========