Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Ben thinks the professor Sipser is wrong
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 17:33:21 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 106
Message-ID: <v677vh$2u7lu$2@dont-email.me>
References: <tic5tr$25uem$6@dont-email.me> <8735bpq5jh.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <v66o6i$2rv8q$3@dont-email.me>
 <8bbce1bb519f205ef865a07719bf35f68170ad61@i2pn2.org>
 <v66psp$2scuh$1@dont-email.me>
 <990598b3a90c559f7125530edef9c5a0ef2c7102@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2024 00:33:22 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f325a973008a37eaa6ec545239278e3d";
	logging-data="3088062"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/NRZqK6+Ypx3d2mSlsd29N"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ummuzRmrl+QYQ0AfRFDOTT3uWig=
In-Reply-To: <990598b3a90c559f7125530edef9c5a0ef2c7102@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6087

On 7/4/2024 5:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 7/4/24 2:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/4/2024 1:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 7/4/24 2:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> <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.
>>>> ...
>>>>  > But H determines (correctly) that D would not halt if it were not
>>>>  > halted.  That much is a truism.
>>>>
>>>> Ben clearly agrees that the above criteria have been met,
>>>> yet feels that professor Sipser was tricked into agreeing
>>>> that this means that:
>>>>      H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>>>      specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>
>>>> I spent two years deriving those words that Professor Sipser
>>>> agreed with. It seems to me that every software engineer would
>>>> agree that the second part is logically entailed by the first part.
>>>
>>>
>>> You mean you WASTED two years and set a trap for your self that you 
>>> fell into.
>>>
>>> The problem is that Ben is adopting your definitions that professor 
>>> Sipser is not using.
>>>
>>
>> Ben agrees that my criteria have been met according to their
>> exact words. If you want to lie about that I won't talk to
>> you again.
>>
> 
> Which meant different things, so not the same.
> 
> The biggest problem is your H/P interlocking program pair is something 
> outside the normal scope of Computation theory.
> 
> The way you have built your Deicder/Decider combination isn't actualy 
> within the definition of normal Computaiton Theory, as that would have 
> Decider as a totally independent program from the program it is deciding 
> on.
> 
> Your H and D aren't that sort of thing because they are interwined into 
> a single memory space, and even share code.
> 
> This makes some things possible to do about the pair that can not be 
> done if they were independent programs, like H being able to detect that 
> D calls itself (but not copies of itself, which is why you don't allow 
> those copies, as that breasks your lie).
> 

Ever heard of string comparison?
H can detect that D calls copies of itself.
That merely makes the details more complex.

> Another of the big effect of thins, is that the way you defined it, D 
> actually does have access to the decider that is going to decide it (if 
> we follow your rule and name the decider H). This can turn what used to 
> be an independent fully defined program P into a dependent program 
> template. 

The key issue is that by my basis structure that applies equally
to DD correctly simulated by HH as it applies to ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly
simulated by embedded_H is that the paradoxical decision point
cannot be reached. This converts the "impossible" problem into a
difficult one.

> Undet THAT condition, Ben agreed that yoUr H could conclude 
> that no version of H could simulate the version of D that uses it, to 
> its final state. Since P is a template, and not a program, it doesn't 
> have the normal Objective definition of behavior, and thus your 
> subjective one might need to be used, even with its problems.
> 

The key point that you must acknowledge before continuing is
that the criteria is met for H/D. I can't tolerate one more
reply where you deny this.

> When you asked Professor Sipser, The H will be a SPECIFIC decider, and 
> the D will be a specific input that doesn't change, and thus DOES have 
> an objective behavior (that of directly running it, or completely 
> simulating it) and only if H can determine that this OBJECTIVE 
> definition is met, can it abort. Of course, due the relationship in the 
> construction of D, the H that it was built from can NEVER make that 
> correct determination, as if it does, then D will halt and thus H could 
> not have made the determination.
> 
> The fact that you don't understand this just shows how little you 
> understand the theory, or it seems, programming in general.

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer