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: =?UTF-8?B?UmU6IGVtYmVkZGVkX0ggYXBwbGllZCB0byDin6jEpOKfqSDin6jEpA==?=
 =?UTF-8?B?4p+p?=
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2024 15:16:20 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 81
Message-ID: <v88tal$klqc$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v6rg65$32o1o$3@dont-email.me>
 <056325e336f81a50f4fb9e60f90934eaac823d22@i2pn2.org>
 <v73gk2$obtd$1@dont-email.me>
 <e2958e7ea04d53590c79b53bfb4bc9dff468772b@i2pn2.org>
 <v742r2$s48s$2@dont-email.me>
 <210383b2ee318f68a96d94aec314ee8b93f79b7f@i2pn2.org>
 <v75u22$19j7l$4@dont-email.me>
 <fde630817c49562bc765bdbc98e16a1582bcad53@i2pn2.org>
 <v78mda$1smtm$2@dont-email.me> <v7d5cl$2t3ja$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7ds0o$30pvh$3@dont-email.me> <v7fs29$3f4g7$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7gd17$3hlc2$2@dont-email.me> <v7ikn4$1jv5$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7j2pg$3o7r$3@dont-email.me> <v7l3di$idv1$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7lnrf$luh0$1@dont-email.me> <v7niqp$13ghd$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7obbn$17h8r$1@dont-email.me> <v7qfm6$1m5ce$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7qvs3$1onhe$2@dont-email.me> <v7vnnn$2os1v$1@dont-email.me>
 <v80akb$2rabc$5@dont-email.me> <v82751$39qck$1@dont-email.me>
 <v82v0a$3dftr$4@dont-email.me> <v84tv8$3rmit$1@dont-email.me>
 <v88f8e$i7kl$1@dont-email.me>
 <bcf949e2aca3a7b537f4457049ac2e3884570bbf@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2024 22:16:21 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9d358cc663705f17d44fb4afa23cd753";
	logging-data="677708"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19NwdSgLaRoqAVUyyCDSUsu"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:JBDWYg4aInAkKIEDBE5pX4NXXs4=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <bcf949e2aca3a7b537f4457049ac2e3884570bbf@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 5876

On 7/29/2024 3:08 PM, joes wrote:
> Am Mon, 29 Jul 2024 11:16:13 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>> On 7/28/2024 3:02 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-07-27 14:08:10 +0000, olcott said:
>>>> On 7/27/2024 2:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-07-26 14:08:11 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>> On 7/26/2024 3:45 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-07-24 13:33:55 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>> On 7/24/2024 3:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-07-23 13:31:35 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/23/2024 1:32 AM, 0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-07-22 13:46:21 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/22/2024 2:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-07-21 13:34:40 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/21/2024 4:34 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-07-20 13:11:03 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/20/2024 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-07-19 14:08:24 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) We know that a decider is not allowed to report on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior computation that itself is contained within.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, we don't. There is no such prohibition.
> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Another different TM can take the TM description of this
>>>>>>>>>>>> machine and thus accurately report on its actual behavior.
>>>>>>>>>>> If a Turing machine can take a description of a TM as its input
>>>>>>>>>>> or as a part of its input it can also take its own description.
>>>>>>>>>>> Every Turing machine can be given its own description as input
>>>>>>>>>>> but a Turing machine may interprete it as something else.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In this case we have two x86utm machines that are identical
>>>>>>>>>> except that DDD calls HHH and DDD does not call HHH1.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That DDD calls HHH and DDD does not call HHH1 is not a difference
>>>>>>>>> between two unnamed turing machines.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The same thing happens at the Peter Linz Turing Machine level I
>>>>>>>> will provide that more difficult example if and only if you prove
>>>>>>>> that you understand this one.
> Way to disgruntle your "reviewers".
> 
>>>>>>> However, Peter Linz does not call taht same thing a difference.
> 
>>>>> Some of the properties you assert exsit actually do exist, some
>>>>> don't.
> 
>>>> (a) Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>> (b) Ĥ invokes embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>> (c) embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>> (d) simulated ⟨Ĥ⟩ copies its input ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>> (e) simulated ⟨Ĥ⟩ invokes simulated embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>> (f) simulated embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>> (g) goto (d) with one more level of simulation
>>>> You are supposed to evaluate the above as a contiguous sequence of
>>>> moves such that non-halting behavior is identified.
>>>
>>> The above is an obvious tight loop of (d), (e), (f), and (g).
>>> Its relevance (it any) to the topic of the discussion is not obvious.
>>>
>> When we compute the mapping from the input to embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>> to the behavior specified by this input we know that embedded_H is
>> correct to transition to Ĥ.qn.
>> Everyone say no, no that it not the behavior of the computation that
>> embedded_H is contained within: Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>> It is not supposed to be (or allowed to be) the behavior of the
>> executing Turing machine that embedded_H is contained within.
>> It is only supposed to be the behavior that the input to embedded_H
>> specifies and this includes recursive simulation.
>  From the fact that the simulation is recursive we know that the
> embedded H is the same as the outer one.
> 

It is a fact that embedded_H aborts the simulation of its input
or itself never stops running.


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