Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: No decider is accountable for the computation that itself is
 contained within
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2024 10:23:19 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 78
Message-ID: <v8cs9n$1gbu7$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v80irs$2tlb5$1@dont-email.me> <v828ju$3a1gf$1@dont-email.me>
 <v82vpu$3dftr$6@dont-email.me> <v8506m$3s27b$1@dont-email.me>
 <v88g60$i7kl$5@dont-email.me>
 <8ac9fd02d6247cec58098de53c964a5feed41946@i2pn2.org>
 <v88u9c$kpv7$1@dont-email.me>
 <3c24d92260cc29c0b39004bf3448d415c567549a@i2pn2.org>
 <v8b443$13n24$1@dont-email.me>
 <00e25e8f7bb0af364c2bad26b5a1ebeb76fee34d@i2pn2.org>
 <v8bhhe$15une$3@dont-email.me>
 <f8c0c2ac41bd97a5cdbf0d3a50274a08e6246c72@i2pn2.org>
 <v8blja$16ibk$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2024 10:23:19 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ecb5db382df1907940b8ec29fc629507";
	logging-data="1585095"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/UTj4SSA5xUdPOzfkhw5ZA"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:QYrsnhXqrsI1C6CtsB45b32t1sY=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <v8blja$16ibk$3@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5118

Op 30.jul.2024 om 23:22 schreef olcott:
> On 7/30/2024 4:09 PM, joes wrote:
>> Am Tue, 30 Jul 2024 15:13:34 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 7/30/2024 2:52 PM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Tue, 30 Jul 2024 11:24:35 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> On 7/30/2024 2:24 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>> Am Mon, 29 Jul 2024 15:32:44 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>> On 7/29/2024 3:17 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>> Am Mon, 29 Jul 2024 11:32:00 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/28/2024 3:40 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-07-27 14:21:50 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/27/2024 2:46 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-07-26 16:28:43 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Halt deciders are not allowed to report on the behavior of the
>>>>>>>>> actual computation that they themselves are contained within. They
>>>>>>>>> are only allowed to compute the mapping from input finite strings.
>>>>>>>> What if the input is the same as the containing computation?
>>>>>>> It always is except in the case where the decider is reporting on
>>>>>>> the TM description that itself is contained within.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't understand. "The input is not the same as the containing
>>>>>> computation when deciding on the description of the containing
>>>>>> computation"?
>>>> I mean: is that an accurate paraphrase?
>>>>
>>>>> An executing Turing machine is not allowed to report on its own
>>>>> behavior. Every decider is only allowed to report on the behavior that
>>>>> its finite string input specifies.
>>>> And what happens when those are the same?
> 
>>> That is always the case except in the rare exception that I discovered
>>> where a simulating halt decider is simulating the input that calls
>>> itself.
> 
>> Always? Most TMs don't get themselves as input. OTOH that is one of
>> the most interesting cases.
>> The description of a TM specifies the behaviour of that machine
>> when it is running.
>>
> 
> The x86 code of DDD when correctly emulated by HHH according
> to the semantics of the x86 code of DDD and HHH does have
> different behavior that the directly executed DDD as a matter
> of verified fact for three years.
> 
> People deny this as if a smash a Boston Cream pie in the face
> and they deny that there ever was any pie even while their
> voice is incoherent because they are talking through the pie
> smashed on their face.
> 
> *I do not a more precise way to say this now*
> DDD is emulated by HHH according to the semantics of the
> x86 code of DDD and HHH. This does include a recursive call
> from DDD to HHH(DDD) that cannot possibly stop repeating
> unless HHH aborts its emulation of DDD.
> 

HHH violates the semantics of the x86 language by skipping the last few 
instructions of a halting program. But olcott keeps dreaming of an 
infinite recursion that does not stop.
Dreams are no substitute for logic proofs.
No matter how much olcott wants it to be correct, or how many times 
olcott repeats that it is correct, it does not change the fact that such 
a simulation is incorrect, because it is unable to reach the end of a 
halting program.
Olcott's own claim that the simulated HHH does not reach its end 
confirms it. The trace he has shown also proves that HHH cannot reach 
the end of its own simulation. So, his own claims prove that it is true 
that HHH cannot possibly simulate itself up to the end, which makes the 
simulation incomplete and, therefore, incorrect.



-- 
Paradoxes in the relation between Creator and creature.
<http://www.wirholt.nl/English>.