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: Liar detector: Fred, Richard, Joes and Alan --- Ben's agreement
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2024 07:17:17 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 51
Message-ID: <v68o8d$39dkv$4@dont-email.me>
References: <v644pn$29t4h$3@dont-email.me> <v645v1$29pag$3@dont-email.me>
 <v646v5$2agfo$1@dont-email.me> <v647p3$29pag$6@dont-email.me>
 <v6480h$2ape0$1@dont-email.me> <v648nk$29pag$8@dont-email.me>
 <v64as3$2bc8m$1@dont-email.me> <v64drn$29pag$10@dont-email.me>
 <v64e92$2bvgc$1@dont-email.me> <v65juc$2lui5$2@dont-email.me>
 <v665c9$2oun1$4@dont-email.me> <v66t0p$2n56v$1@dont-email.me>
 <v66t7p$2srk8$1@dont-email.me> <v66tql$2n56v$3@dont-email.me>
 <v66u56$2suut$1@dont-email.me> <v66v8i$2n56v$4@dont-email.me>
 <v67028$2t9el$1@dont-email.me> <v688vb$36uk0$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2024 14:17:17 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f325a973008a37eaa6ec545239278e3d";
	logging-data="3454623"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+UQtenVh4rDZv6DP7sAgE8"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:bsJ8Po/lT/DRoUyHw6VqpxQ7OxM=
In-Reply-To: <v688vb$36uk0$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3572

On 7/5/2024 2:56 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-07-04 20:18:16 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 7/4/2024 3:04 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 04.jul.2024 om 21:45 schreef olcott:
>>>> On 7/4/2024 2:40 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>> Op 04.jul.2024 om 21:30 schreef olcott:
>>>>>> On 7/4/2024 2:26 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I showed that HHH cannot possibly correctly simulate itself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I proved otherwise, Liar.
>>>>>> https://liarparadox.org/HHH(DDD)_Full_Trace.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> No, this trace supports my claim. When we look at this trace we see 
>>>>> that
>>>>
>>>> HHH is simulating itself simulating DDD until it sees
>>>> that DDD is calling HHH in recursive simulation such
>>>> that neither the simulated DDD nor the simulated HHH
>>>> can possibly stop running unless HHH aborts its DDD.
>>>
>>> The 'unless HHH aborts ...' is irrelevant and misleading,
>>
>> Not at all. Not in the least little bit.
>> A halt decider must PREDICT what its input would do.
>> Professor Sipser recognized this as inherently correct.
> 
> "When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not,
> nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the
> prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him."
> Deuteronomy 18:22
> 
> That is, preditions and predictors must be tested and not taken serioulsy
> unless the pass the test.
> 
> In case of halt deciders, that means that when we know what the halt 
> decider
> has predicted we run the computation described by the input to the halt
> decider and see whether it halts and complare what we see to the 
> prediction.
> 

It is not the job of a simulating termination analyzer
to get stuck in recursive simulation. It is the job
of a simulating termination analyzer to correctly
predict this and take action to prevent it.
-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer