Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<vb1jtg$1fpap$1@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: 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 14:41:36 +0300 Organization: - Lines: 109 Message-ID: <vb1jtg$1fpap$1@dont-email.me> References: <va104l$376ed$4@dont-email.me> <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: Sun, 01 Sep 2024 13:41:37 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8af1b31b05c338aa7e6c03e8a9a70b4a"; logging-data="1566041"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX196wfgI4c4uy6DyaFbrv5L9" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:bJ+29M+W535od65U+Siily+u/qc= Bytes: 6955 On 2024-08-31 15:47:46 +0000, Fred. Zwarts said: > 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. You have given more than enough evidence. -- Mikko