Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!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: Mon, 2 Sep 2024 19:44:52 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 193
Message-ID: <vb4til$2u7sn$2@dont-email.me>
References: <va104l$376ed$4@dont-email.me> <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>
 <vavfjq$12m8t$3@dont-email.me> <vb1gqf$1f566$1@dont-email.me>
 <vb4fd0$2s0uc$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2024 19:44:53 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="692047d1739acfbfb1f7dce4a5e931bd";
	logging-data="3088279"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+DAal0WUHN3XTPco+HarAF"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:JhHojou0DU53y1+Dy2OO3LLI+es=
In-Reply-To: <vb4fd0$2s0uc$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 10239

Op 02.sep.2024 om 15:42 schreef olcott:
> On 9/1/2024 5:48 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 31.aug.2024 om 18:15 schreef olcott:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> And people (except the stupid ones) can see that, because HHH cannot 
>> wait for itself, 
> 
> Because this would require it to wait forever,
> thus HHH knows that to meet its own requirement
> to halt it must abort its simulation.
> 
>> this means that HHH failed to simulate itself correctly 
> 
> You are either very stupid or a damned liar about this.
> As long as HHH emulates its input according to the semantics
> of the x86 language HHH is correctly emulating this input
> even if this correct emulation causes the computer to catch
> on fire.
> 
> AS I HAVE TOLD YOU FAR TOO MANY TIMES
> CORRECT EMULATION IS ENTIRELY DETERMINED
> BY THE SEMANTICS OF THE X86 LANGUAGE.

Yes, but I don't understand why HHH, programmed by Olcott himself 
violates the semantics of the x86 language, by skipping the last few 
instructions of the halting program?

> 
> When DDD calls HHH(DDD) then HHH must emulate
> itself emulating DDD. If this causes the emulated
> HHH to never return 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========