Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Indirect Reference Changes the Behavior of DDD() relative to DDD emulated by HHH
Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2024 14:39:52 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 112
Message-ID: <vb1jq8$1fpa8$1@dont-email.me>
References: <va104l$376ed$4@dont-email.me> <7a1c569a699e79bfa146affbbae3eac7b91cd263@i2pn2.org> <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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2024 13:39:53 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8af1b31b05c338aa7e6c03e8a9a70b4a";
	logging-data="1566024"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18PLz4K3QBrXUO3+mULSsYy"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:BKdJRnjF1B3O3KYIpacy45wf8Cw=
Bytes: 6755

On 2024-08-31 12:50:34 +0000, olcott said:

> 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.

The designer of the decider knows the intended behavour of the decider
and may design the decider to contain and use that knowledge.

>> 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.

Different from what?

The behaviour of DDD before the point where the simulation is aborted
is a part of the behaviour of DDD. If the simulator simulates aoother
behaviour then the simulator does not simulate correctly.

> than the behavior of DDD after it has been aborted,
> people are not hungry after they eat.

That is not a sentence. Looks like an editing error.

> The direct execution of DDD includes the behavior
> of the emulated DDD after it has been aborted.

Both the directly executed DDD and the emulated DDD are DDD and
therefore the same, and its behaviour is the behaviour of DDD
regradless how you call it.

> The emulation of DDD includes the behavior of DDD
> before it has been aborted.

Which, if the emulation is correct, is a part of the behaviour of
DDD.

> The behavior of infinite recursion is different
> before its second recursive call has been aborted
> than after this second call has been aborted.

A finitely recursive simulation is neither infinite nor recursion.

-- 
Mikko