Path: ...!npeer.as286.net!dummy01.as286.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!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
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2024 21:15:35 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 143
Message-ID: <vbtis7$1glm$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 04:15:35 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="273dca7c823af3d19498bfc27cf643dc";
	logging-data="49846"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19KeDIW87NBbSLe39zsikZ+"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:xurq/LjRPQJtQ/BMy5dgxXChZw8=
In-Reply-To: <6ea95eadc7229a1670d4705b149b4a2bb0290846@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 7387

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?
> 
> The problem seems to be that you are ASSUMING it.
> 

The key is (as I have been saying for a long time)
To anchor the accurate model of the actual world in axioms.

*AS FREAKING DETAILED BELOW*
Getting from Generative AI to Trustworthy AI:
What LLMs might learn from Cyc
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2308/2308.04445.pdf

*Some of the most brilliant minds in AI for 40 years*
Doug Lenat Gary Marcus July 31, 2023


-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer