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 ==========