Path: ...!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 20:12:16 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 160
Message-ID: <v67h9h$2vnls$1@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>
 <v677vh$2u7lu$2@dont-email.me>
 <dbebddf487aebc1c848fc07abb0f7800e068f34e@i2pn2.org>
 <v67d2s$2v7vf$1@dont-email.me>
 <9d7ed80b2fc8e04050d413c3f922ce409d55f31c@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 03:12:17 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f325a973008a37eaa6ec545239278e3d";
	logging-data="3137212"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+MnCa1i/wjcpOfRHlluMHF"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:cnYx/bgPiDMHuV14+qrkbik8XzI=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <9d7ed80b2fc8e04050d413c3f922ce409d55f31c@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 8309

On 7/4/2024 7:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 7/4/24 8:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/4/2024 6:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 7/4/24 6:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Nope, doesn't work. Particularly for Turing Machines.
>>>
>>> The problem is that the seperate compliation and linking with the 
>>> resultant different address makes the byte pattern for the code not 
>>> necessarily a duplicate.
>>>
>>> When you consider that the input is antagonistic, it can also 
>>> intentionally make alterations that do not change the outward 
>>> behavior, but do change the byte code.
>>>
>>> I seem to remember that it has been proven that, in general, the 
>>> identification of an equivalent copy of yourself is uncomputable.
>>>
>>> We went over this before, and you could never understand it.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Nope. Your basic structure can not be converted back into a pair of 
>>> Turing Machihes, showing it isn't based on actual Computations.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> But your criteria isn't a legal critieria. The "Behavior" of the 
>>> input must be an objective property of just that input, and thus can 
>>> not be something that depends on the decider looking at it.
>>>
>>
>> It must depend on the decider looking at it or we are required
>> to ignore the actual fact that DDD does call HHH in recursive
>> simulation. We are certainly not allowed to ignore any actual
>> facts. If you can't get that then it seems we may be done talking.
> 
> 
> Why do you say that? Yes, it males the problem harder (in fact in some 
> cases impossible) but that is the rule.
> 
> You seem to have a problem with the simple fact that some maps are just 
> imposisble to compute.
> 
> But that MUST be true as there is an order of infinity more maps than 
> possible deciders, so most maps must not be computable.
> 
> It CAN'T depend on the decider, 

It must depend on the decider because that is an aspect
that the execution trace of DDD correctly emulated by
HHH specifies at machine address 0000217a.

_DDD()
[00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404     add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d         pop ebp
[00002183] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]


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