| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<vavdv4$11uqn$6@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!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: Indirect Reference Changes the Behavior of DDD() relative to DDD emulated by HHH Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2024 17:47:46 +0200 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 120 Message-ID: <vavdv4$11uqn$6@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> <vavcf8$129qh$1@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 17:47:48 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="56101d00a62a2f8eb5c4efbb04550369"; logging-data="1112919"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19TMsvbaV24AIbq5f4V73Hq" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:kl2Knvu9V7hJhDvNvSSLndccrLg= In-Reply-To: <vavcf8$129qh$1@dont-email.me> Content-Language: en-GB Bytes: 7227 Op 31.aug.2024 om 17:22 schreef olcott: > 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. No evidence for this ad hominem attack. So, my claim still stands.