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: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 19:57:08 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v5ku8k$1as00$1@i2pn2.org>
References: <v45tec$4q15$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> <v5k5ko$2qsdr$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 23:57:08 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1404928"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v5k5ko$2qsdr$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 11722
Lines: 237

On 6/27/24 12:56 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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.
>>>>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========