Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.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 19:47:29 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 145
Message-ID: <vb4tnh$2u7sn$3@dont-email.me>
References: <va104l$376ed$4@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>
 <vb1jtg$1fpap$1@dont-email.me> <vb4d6v$2r7ok$4@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 19:47:30 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="692047d1739acfbfb1f7dce4a5e931bd";
	logging-data="3088279"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+exOIdfk3j0Zo3QFOnswtW"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:daF9GEPx9aYhCgrnkVNZXpsiYkU=
In-Reply-To: <vb4d6v$2r7ok$4@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 8405

Op 02.sep.2024 om 15:05 schreef olcott:
> On 9/1/2024 6:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> 
> When I correct a false assumption many times and the
> person insists on keeping the false assumption then
> they are stupid or dishonest.
> 
> Halting is reaching a final halt state thus the
> fact that HHH halts has not one damn thing to do
> with whether DDD halts or not.
> 
> Fred is either too stupid or too dishonest to get this.
> 
Great words again without evidence.
Preventing the program to halt, by stopping the simulation just before 
it would halt, does not prove a non-halting behaviour.
Olcott seems to be blind for such simple logic.