Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 11:30:34 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 203
Message-ID: <v5lsba$38t1k$1@dont-email.me>
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: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 10:30:34 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="28b810ff32e626d088cb1c65df50838e";
	logging-data="3437620"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18ylKqu4JHvWqJK0hEiNWSJ"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:xk+odag74won3bxvRgBCnFMbphI=
Bytes: 11179

On 2024-06-27 16:56:56 +0000, olcott said:

> 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,
>>>>>> 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).
>>>> 
>>>> Everyone knwos that H(P,P) is not asked anything.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> In computability theory and computational complexity theory, a
>>> decision problem is a computational problem that can be posed as
>>> a yes–no question of the input values.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_problem
>> 
>> That's right. But that question cannot be presented to the decider.
>> Only the input values can.
>> 
> In other words you are saying that Turing machines do not
> typically understand English.

I didn't mean it that generally, only about deciders, but yes, typical
Turing machines do not understand any English. More specifically, the
specification of a halt decider (or any typical decider) prevents it
from being asked in any language.

> None-the-less no-one here understands that every halt decider
> is only required to report on the behavior that its actual
> input actually maps to.

As far as I have seen, most of them do. And not just maps but maps
in the way specified by the problem statement.

> Instead everyone here expects that the halt decider must map
> to the English description of what the authors of textbooks
> expect it to map to.

Your "everyone" is a lie. As far as I have seen, nobody has expressed
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========