Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.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: Liar detector: Fred, Richard, Joes and Alan --- Ben's agreement
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2024 08:16:47 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 126
Message-ID: <v68rnv$39tml$2@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> <v68b3f$2n56v$5@dont-email.me>
 <v68ocd$39dkv$5@dont-email.me> <v68pfo$2n56v$7@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2024 15:16:48 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f325a973008a37eaa6ec545239278e3d";
	logging-data="3471061"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/LpZDwOCHHGlOPuedAW8X8"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:pImkR2icr5qPDhnAWO9hpesVwVA=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v68pfo$2n56v$7@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 6313

On 7/5/2024 7:38 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 05.jul.2024 om 14:19 schreef olcott:
>> On 7/5/2024 3:32 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 04.jul.2024 om 22:18 schreef olcott:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Yes and when it must predict what a simulator that is programmed to 
>>> abort would do, it should predict that the it will abort and halt. If 
>>> it predicts something different, then it is incorrect.
>>> If it aborts and ignore that last part of the input, it is incorrect.
>>>
>>
>> When a bear is running at you to kill you it is not
>> enough that you only predict that you will shoot the
>> bear. You must actually shoot the bear or you will be killed.
> 
> Exactly! Similarly, if a program is programmed to halt, the simulation 
> of it should not only predict that it will halt, but the simulation must 
> actually let it halt, as the simulated program is programmed to do. HHH 
> fails at both. Its prediction is incorrect and its action is incorrect.
> 

You are either a liar or incompetent
when correctly emulated by HHH there
is no "letting" these functions halt.

void Infinite_Loop()
{
   HERE: goto HERE;
}

void Infinite_Recursion()
{
   Infinite_Recursion();
}

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
}

int main()
{
   HHH(Infinite_Loop);
   HHH(Infinite_Recursion);
   HHH(DDD);
}

> It is as if you predict that the bear will not kill and therefore you do 
> not shoot. A wrong prediction and a wrong action can be fatal.
> 
> However, HHH simulating itself cannot possibly do that correctly, 
> because it is programmed to abort prematurely, before its simulated self 
> would abort and halt. So, both its prediction and its action are incorrect.
> 
>>
>>>> Professor Sipser recognized this as inherently correct.
>>>
>>> But that did not apply, because its context was a *correct* 
>>> simulation. His agreement does not include *incorrect* simulations.
>>> Sipser would agree that HHH, when aborting a simulation of itself and 
>>> missing the last part of the input is incorrect.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Introduction to the Theory of Computation, by Michael Sipser
>>>> https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-Michael-Sipser/dp/113318779X/
>>>>
>>>> He is the #1 best selling author of textbooks on computation
>>>> theory. Ben did contact him to verify that he did say this.
>>>>
>>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>>>      If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>>>
>>> Note the word 'correctly'. So, it does not apply to the simulation of 
>>> HHH by itself, which cannot possibly correctly simulate itself.
>>>
>>>>      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>
>>>>
>>>> Ben also agreed that D correctly simulated by H DOES MEET THIS 
>>>> CRITERIA.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>

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