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 11:15:54 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 130
Message-ID: <vavfjq$12m8t$3@dont-email.me>
References: <va104l$376ed$4@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> <vavdv4$11uqn$6@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 18:15:55 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="704a0de50af0d27d19f59cdc9b0cd400";
	logging-data="1136925"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX195rU51e+RSDJj9EqpGzoyV"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:fcnWcKUctDtPGBYIF3K8/5h2JA4=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vavdv4$11uqn$6@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 7658

On 8/31/2024 10:47 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> 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.

People that are not as stupid can see that HHH cannot
wait for itself to abort its own simulation.


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