Path: ...!news.nobody.at!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 --- Trump and Hitler
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2024 08:12:55 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 347
Message-ID: <vbupcn$91rb$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>
 <vbtis7$1glm$1@dont-email.me>
 <50f1b5a566928de7d70d86f03260ea519f0436e9@i2pn2.org>
 <vbtkt5$1psh$1@dont-email.me>
 <23df01d430433cf117a4e87de77698eac39355e1@i2pn2.org>
 <vbumr0$8crn$2@dont-email.me>
 <f7f045c8c0e9cac680a4b8426d3fac859696966c@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 15:12:56 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="273dca7c823af3d19498bfc27cf643dc";
	logging-data="296811"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18raenRTDm/EsgU/yzEAKoz"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:WGNSLLglfPSPIR6l6JtjYt9Z94k=
In-Reply-To: <f7f045c8c0e9cac680a4b8426d3fac859696966c@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 15667

On 9/12/2024 7:51 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 9/12/24 8:29 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 9/12/2024 6:53 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 9/11/24 10:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 9/11/2024 9:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 9/11/24 10:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> And how do you know your axiom about the actual world are correct? 
>>>>> Things about what we have defined are one thing. (like defining a 
>>>>> foot to be 12 inches). But anything that is based on observation 
>>>>> inherently has a degree of error, and thus we can't actually KNOW 
>>>>> if our conclusions are true.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *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
>>>>>
>>>>> Which absolutely can't tell if something about an empirical 
>>>>> statement is actually correct, as it is a pure analytic system.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Such a system can immediately call out the hired liars
>>>> of climate change by doing as I have have done directly
>>>> studying the raw data.
>>>
>>> So, PRESENT the actual data that LOGICLY PROVES what you claim. 
>>> Remember, your claim is a logical proof from axioms, and axioms need 
>>> to be the AGREED upon must be trues of the system.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========