Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<vbtcq8$3slge$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: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Defining a correct simulating halt decider --- Doug Lenat Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2024 19:32:07 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 143 Message-ID: <vbtcq8$3slge$1@dont-email.me> References: <vb4plc$2tqeg$1@dont-email.me> <vb6o5t$3a95s$1@dont-email.me> <vb71a3$3b4ub$4@dont-email.me> <vbbmuc$8nbb$1@dont-email.me> <vbcbe4$bdtb$3@dont-email.me> <vbeoge$q2ph$1@dont-email.me> <vbeprp$punj$7@dont-email.me> <c600a691fab10473128eed2a1fad2a429ad4733f@i2pn2.org> <vbh2sp$19ov0$1@dont-email.me> <vbhm3c$1c7u5$12@dont-email.me> <vbkdph$1v80k$1@dont-email.me> <vbne7e$2g6vo$6@dont-email.me> <vbp1d7$2sg7q$1@dont-email.me> <vbqnqi$381t6$1@dont-email.me> <vbrh87$3fttk$1@dont-email.me> <vbrvln$3im2p$2@dont-email.me> <vbsglu$3mme2$5@dont-email.me> <vbt8di$3rqef$1@dont-email.me> <6ea95eadc7229a1670d4705b149b4a2bb0290846@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2024 02:32:08 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="273dca7c823af3d19498bfc27cf643dc"; logging-data="4085262"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+NT0gevbqx7YAOjkfH0QZK" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:YsQRxckyAY+xCRypE2+Ndsc9110= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <6ea95eadc7229a1670d4705b149b4a2bb0290846@i2pn2.org> Bytes: 7451 On 9/11/2024 6:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 9/11/24 7:17 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 9/11/2024 11:31 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>> Op 11.sep.2024 om 13:41 schreef olcott: >>>> On 9/11/2024 2:35 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 2024-09-11 00:21:36 +0000, olcott said: >>>>> >>>>>> On 9/10/2024 3:52 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> On 2024-09-09 18:19:26 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 9/8/2024 9:53 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2024-09-07 13:57:00 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 9/7/2024 3:29 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-09-07 05:12:19 +0000, joes said: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Am Fri, 06 Sep 2024 06:42:48 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/6/2024 6:19 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-09-05 13:24:20 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/5/2024 2:34 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-09-03 13:00:50 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2024 5:25 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-09-02 16:38:03 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A halt decider is a Turing machine that computes the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mapping from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its finite string input to the behavior that this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite string >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifies. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A halt decider needn't compute the full behaviour, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only whether >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that behaviour is finite or infinite. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> New slave_stack at:1038c4 Begin Local Halt Decider >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulation >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulation Stopped >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hence HHH(DDD)==0 is correct >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nice to see that you don't disagree with what said. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unvortunately I can't agree with what you say. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH terminates, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> os DDD obviously terminates, too. No valid >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDD emulated by HHH never reaches it final halt state. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If that iis true it means that HHH called by DDD does not >>>>>>>>>>>>>> return and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> therefore is not a ceicder. >>>>>>>>>>>>> The directly executed HHH is a decider. >>>>>>>>>>>> What does simulating it change about that? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If the simulation is incorrect it may change anything. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> PATHOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS CHANGE BEHAVIOR >>>>>>>>>> PATHOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS CHANGE BEHAVIOR >>>>>>>>>> PATHOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS CHANGE BEHAVIOR >>>>>>>>>> PATHOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS CHANGE BEHAVIOR >>>>>>>>>> PATHOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS CHANGE BEHAVIOR >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> However, a correct simultation faithfully imitates the original >>>>>>>>> behaviour. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _DDD() >>>>>>>> [00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping >>>>>>>> [00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping >>>>>>>> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD >>>>>>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD) >>>>>>>> [0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04 >>>>>>>> [00002182] 5d pop ebp >>>>>>>> [00002183] c3 ret >>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A correct emulation obeys the x86 machine code even >>>>>>>> if this machine code catches the machine on fire. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is impossible for an emulation of DDD by HHH to >>>>>>>> reach machine address 00002183 AND YOU KNOW IT!!! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A correct emulation of DDD does reach the machine address >>>>>>> 0000217f and >>>>>>> a little later 00002183. >>>>>> >>>>>> *That is counter-factual and you cannot possibly show otherwise* >>>>> >>>>> A halt decider is required to predict about the actual execution, >>>>> not a couterfactual assumption. >>>>> >>>> >>>> False assumption. >>>> A halt decider must compute the mapping that its input >>>> finite string specifies. >>> >>> And the input, a finite string that describes a program based on the >>> aborting HHH, describes a halting program, as proven by the direct >>> execution, by the unmodified world class simulator and even by HHH1. >>> The semantics of the x86 language allows only one behaviour for the >>> finite string. Any program claiming another behaviour violates the >>> semantics of the x86 language, >>> >>>> >>>> It is ridiculously stupid to assume that the fact >>>> that DDD calls its own emulator does not change >>>> its behavior relative to not calling its own emulator. >>> >>> It ridiculous to assume that the semantics of the x86 language allows >>> another behaviour for the finite string. >>> >>> >>> Why do you have a religious conviction to this stupid >>> mistake? >> >> Once we understand we can make a machine that detects >> lies in real time on the basis of knowing truth we will >> know that we didn't have to die from climate change or >> allow the rise of the fourth Reich. >> >> > > Are you sure we can do that? > They key is (as I have been saying for a long time) To anchor the accurate model of the actual world in axioms. https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2308/2308.04445.pdf > The problem seems to be that you are ASSUMING it. > > The big problem with trying to detect lies in real time based on knowing > truth is that not all truth is knowable, so you have started in a whole > to begin with, > > Your problem seems to be that you don't really understand what TRUTH > acutally is, because your father has told you so many lies about it. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer