Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!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: Indirect Reference Changes the Behavior of DDD() relative to DDD
 emulated by HHH
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2024 10:22:15 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 122
Message-ID: <vavcf8$129qh$1@dont-email.me>
References: <va104l$376ed$4@dont-email.me> <va3f7o$3ipp3$1@dont-email.me>
 <729cc551062c13875686d266a5453a488058e81c@i2pn2.org>
 <va3kac$3nd5c$1@dont-email.me>
 <148bf4dd91f32379a6d81a621fb7ec3fc1e00db0@i2pn2.org>
 <va3lai$3nd5c$2@dont-email.me> <va46sd$3pr24$1@dont-email.me>
 <va4mle$3s0hu$1@dont-email.me>
 <5591ff08ed8f7b4bdf33813681e156b775efe0ec@i2pn2.org>
 <va63uu$2fo9$1@dont-email.me>
 <b0a86b6a1343ebb5f9112ae757768a7cbbc770b2@i2pn2.org>
 <va65r8$6ht7$1@dont-email.me>
 <da75188ffa7677bd2b6979c8fc6ba82119404306@i2pn2.org>
 <878qwn0wyz.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <efacnfsQdv-ErlT7nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <87le0jzc8f.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk> <vaj1kd$2kvg9$1@dont-email.me>
 <eca21d905b57bb0b98172c573890b5c8cda91da8@i2pn2.org>
 <vakisq$302rl$3@dont-email.me> <vamjse$3d6eb$1@dont-email.me>
 <van2ni$3f6c0$1@dont-email.me> <vap9r5$3t411$1@dont-email.me>
 <vapv4l$3vumk$4@dont-email.me> <vashj9$grso$1@dont-email.me>
 <vav3iq$10jsm$4@dont-email.me> <vavc3b$11uqn$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2024 17:22:16 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="704a0de50af0d27d19f59cdc9b0cd400";
	logging-data="1124177"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+ImnIAu/5XIR61/Nnk8UNM"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:PfKe0yJiwnfElUOnvdAoeKvHTAI=
In-Reply-To: <vavc3b$11uqn$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 7104

On 8/31/2024 10:15 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 31.aug.2024 om 14:50 schreef olcott:
>> On 8/30/2024 8:31 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-08-29 14:04:05 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 8/29/2024 3:00 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-08-28 11:46:58 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/28/2024 2:33 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-08-27 13:04:26 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 8/27/2024 12:45 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Am Mon, 26 Aug 2024 18:03:41 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/26/2024 7:42 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 23/08/2024 22:07, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> We don't really know what context Sipser was given.  I got 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in touch
>>>>>>>>>>>>> at the time so I do know he had enough context to know that 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> PO's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ideas were "wacky" and that had agreed to what he 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> considered a "minor
>>>>>>>>>>>>> remark". Since PO considers his words finely crafted and 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> key to his
>>>>>>>>>>>>> so-called work I think it's clear that Sipser did not take 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the "minor
>>>>>>>>>>>>> remark" he agreed to to mean what PO takes it to mean!  My 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> own take
>>>>>>>>>>>>> if that he (Sipser) read it as a general remark about how to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine some cases, i.e. that D names an input that H can 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> partially
>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate to determine it's halting or otherwise.  We all 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> know or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> could construct some such cases.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Exactly my reading.  It makes Sipser's agreement natural, 
>>>>>>>>>>>> because it
>>>>>>>>>>>> is both correct [with sensible interpretation of terms], and 
>>>>>>>>>>>> moreover
>>>>>>>>>>>> describes an obvious strategy that a partial decider might 
>>>>>>>>>>>> use that
>>>>>>>>>>>> can decide halting for some specific cases.  No need for 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sipser to be
>>>>>>>>>>>> deceptive or misleading here, when the truth suffices.  (In 
>>>>>>>>>>>> particular
>>>>>>>>>>>> no need to employ "tricksy" vacuous truth get out clauses 
>>>>>>>>>>>> just to get
>>>>>>>>>>>> PO off his back as some have suggested.)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, and it fits with his thinking it a "trivial remark".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That aside, it's such an odd way to present an argument: "I 
>>>>>>>>>>> managed to
>>>>>>>>>>> trick X into saying 'yes' to something vague".  In any 
>>>>>>>>>>> reasonable
>>>>>>>>>>> collegiate exchange you'd go back and check: "So even when D is
>>>>>>>>>>> constructed from H, H can return based on what /would/ happen 
>>>>>>>>>>> if H did
>>>>>>>>>>> not stop simulating so that H(D,D) == false is correct even 
>>>>>>>>>>> though D(D)
>>>>>>>>>>> halts?".  Just imagine what Sipser would say to that!
>>>>>>>>> Is this an accurate phrasing, pete?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Deciders never compute the mapping of the computation
>>>>>>>> that they themselves are contained within.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why not? A decider always either accepts or rejects its input.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The computation that they themselves are contained within cannot
>>>>>> possibly be an input.
>>>>>
>>>>> What would prevent that if the input language permits computations?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When a TM takes its own machine description as input
>>>> this is not always that same behavior as the direct
>>>> execution of the machine. It is not the same because
>>>> it is one level of indirect reference away.
>>>
>>> Now you contradict what you said above. You said that deciders never
>>> conpute the mapping of the computation they themselves are contained
>>> within. 
>>
>> Although deciders cannot possibly see their own behavior
>> other people can see this behavior.
>>
>>> Now you are saying that they do in a way that might not be
>>> as expected.
>>>
>>
>> If is a verified fact that DDD has different behavior
>> before it is aborted in the same way that people are
>> hungry before they eat.
> 
> No, the behaviour specified by the finite string does not change when a 
> simulator decides to do the simulation only halfway. It is just an 
> incorrect simulation.
> 
>>
>> than the behavior of DDD after it has been aborted,
>> people are not hungry after they eat.
> 
> If two people are hungry and one of them eats, the other one is still 
> hungry and needs to eat. It is stupid to say that they are no longer 
> hungry because they have eaten.
> Similarly the simulating HHH is not longer hungry, but the simulated HHH 
> still is hungry and has not yet eaten.
> 
>>
>> The direct execution of DDD includes the behavior
>> of the emulated DDD after it has been aborted.
> 
> And the simulator should also simulate until it sees the behaviour of 
> after the simulated HHH has aborted its simulator.

THIS IS ONLY YOUR OWN FREAKING STUPIDITY.


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