Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: The philosophy of computation reformulates existing ideas on a
 new basis --- EQUIVOCATION
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2024 20:33:40 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 209
Message-ID: <vg6jtk$1uqc$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vfli1h$fj8s$1@dont-email.me> <vfp8c0$3tobi$2@i2pn2.org>
 <vfpcko$1837o$3@dont-email.me> <vfpish$3u885$2@i2pn2.org>
 <vfpjk2$1976k$1@dont-email.me>
 <086fc32f14bcc004466d3128b0fe585b27377399@i2pn2.org>
 <vfqsui$1jg6i$2@dont-email.me> <vft4om$44tc$2@i2pn2.org>
 <vft944$25aio$6@dont-email.me>
 <11408789ed30027f4bc9a743f353dfa9b4712109@i2pn2.org>
 <QU2dnTAfup30Rr_6nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <vfvnml$2ll12$1@dont-email.me> <vfvujg$2mcse$6@dont-email.me>
 <vg2cqm$37cq6$1@dont-email.me> <vg2kfq$38m0h$1@dont-email.me>
 <vg4va2$3ok87$1@dont-email.me> <vg55lv$3pnvp$1@dont-email.me>
 <38fdfb81e98cbb31d6dfffddbd5a82eff984e496@i2pn2.org>
 <vg5lk5$3s9mh$1@dont-email.me>
 <ba125243c8b842c626957957dadff9e89c84a873@i2pn2.org>
 <vg64mh$3v3m7$1@dont-email.me>
 <750be82de0bb525580577c5ed9ce33a04ad369be@i2pn2.org>
 <vg6glu$1ejv$1@dont-email.me>
 <0a36b538765fd0281b7bfe7e289854d8e8759067@i2pn2.org>
 <vg6hv7$1mc6$1@dont-email.me>
 <9211b826f7b6e9a33e330b1fb665497b257270cf@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2024 02:33:41 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="78d696b0e880e7e96a4aa9625f760657";
	logging-data="64332"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19zGZb9MOmVwobhBqhbhLm/"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Dkx+w41wwV/YnT0yR76LmI7He0o=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241102-0, 11/1/2024), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <9211b826f7b6e9a33e330b1fb665497b257270cf@i2pn2.org>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 10442

On 11/2/2024 8:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 11/2/24 9:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 11/2/2024 7:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 11/2/24 8:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 11/2/2024 7:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 11/2/24 5:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/2/2024 3:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/2/24 12:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/2/2024 10:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/2/24 8:24 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When the main motive of people like Richard is to derail
>>>>>>>>>> any chance of mutual agreement I cannot proceed with all
>>>>>>>>>> of the steps achieving mutual agreement on each step one
>>>>>>>>>> at a time in their mandatory prerequisite order.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, my "motive" is to hold cranks to the truth, or at least get 
>>>>>>>>> them to admit that they are off in some other system, that they 
>>>>>>>>> can define.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You keep on wanting to be in the system (since it provides the 
>>>>>>>>> proof of the things you don't like) but can't hold yourself to 
>>>>>>>>> actually be in the system.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> _DDD()
>>>>>>>>>> [000020a2] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>>>> [000020a3] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>>>> [000020a5] 68a2200000 push 000020a2 ; push DDD
>>>>>>>>>> [000020aa] e8f3f9ffff call 00001aa2 ; call H0
>>>>>>>>>> [000020af] 83c404     add esp,+04   ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>>>> [000020b2] 5d         pop ebp       ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>>>> [000020b3] c3         ret           ; never gets here
>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [000020b3]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> DDD emulated by HHH according to the semantics of the x86
>>>>>>>>>> language cannot possibly reach its own "return" instruction
>>>>>>>>>> whether or not any HHH ever aborts its emulation of DDD.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Equivocation between looking at the behavor of DDD being the 
>>>>>>>>> actual program (which include a particular version of HHH) and 
>>>>>>>>> the behavior of a PARTIAL emulation of DDD by HHH, which ends 
>>>>>>>>> up not having the property you want to show.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Partial doesn't lead to showing never.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In other words you continue to perpetually insist on
>>>>>>>> the ridiculously stupid idea of requiring the complete
>>>>>>>> emulation of a non-terminating input.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't think this is: stupidity, ignorance, ADD.
>>>>>>>> I don't know what this leaves besides dishonesty with malice.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, you just need to know the RESULTS of the emulation of the 
>>>>>>> input even if you emulate it for an unlimited number of steps.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes
>>>>>
>>>>> So, you agree that the results of only the partial emulation done 
>>>>> by HHH doesn't define the answer, only that of the infinte 
>>>>> emulation OF THIS EXACT INPUT, defines the behavior, as shown by 
>>>>> HHH1(DDD) which shows it halts.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> You don't need to actually do it if you can prove what it would be.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Yes and ChatGPT agrees*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <ChatGPT>
>>>>>>    Think of HHH as a "watchdog" that steps in during real
>>>>>>    execution to stop DDD() from running forever. But when
>>>>>>    HHH simulates DDD(), it's analyzing an "idealized" version
>>>>>>    of DDD() where nothing stops the recursion. In the simulation,
>>>>>>    DDD() is seen as endlessly recursive, so HHH concludes that
>>>>>>    it would not halt without external intervention.
>>>>>> </ChatGPT>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://chatgpt.com/share/67158ec6-3398-8011-98d1-41198baa29f2
>>>>>
>>>>> Just admitmits that HHH gets the wrong answer, because you lied, 
>>>>> because the HHH that DDD calls will also abort and return to DDD, 
>>>>> so DDD would halt.
>>>>>
>>>>> Remember, you AGREED above that it is the behavior of the INFINITE 
>>>>> emulation, not the finite emulation of HHH defines the answer.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A termination analyzer / halt decider must PREDICT
>>>> non terminating behavior not measure it.
>>>>
>>>> If a termination analyzer / halt decider MEASURES
>>>> non-terminating behavior IT CANNOT REPORT THIS.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course, that is for this exact input, which uses the copy of H 
>>>>>>> that does abort and return.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No it is not.
>>>>>> <ChatGPT>
>>>>>>    when HHH simulates DDD(), it's analyzing an
>>>>>>    "idealized" version of DDD() where nothing
>>>>>>    stops the recursion.
>>>>>> </ChatGPT>
>>>>>
>>>>> In other words you are admitting that it isn't actually looking at 
>>>>> the input it was given.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ChatGPT (using its own words) and I both agree that HHH
>>>> is supposed to predict the behavior of the infinite
>>>> emulation on the basis of its finite emulation.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, but that behavior is DEFINED by the actual behavior of the 
>>> actual machine.
>>>
>>
>> No it is not. It is never based on the actual behavior
>> of the actual machine for any non-terminating inputs.
> 
> Then you don't undetstand the requirement for something to be a semantic 
> property.
> 

The actual behavior specified by the finite string input
to HHH does include HHH emulating itself emulating DDD
such that this DD *not some other DDD somewhere else*
cannot possibly reach its own "return" instruction
whether HHH emulates DDD forever or some finite number
of times.

>>
>> It has only ever been based on what this input would do
>> if its simulation was never aborted.
> 
> Right, which will be exactly what the input will do when run.
> 
> It also means not by changing the copy of the decider the input calls, 
> as then it its the input it was given.
> 
> If you want to change these properties, you need to first fully define 
> what you mean by the terms, and show they still meet the basic 
> requirement needed for this things.
> 
>>
>>>> Only a knucklehead would think that HHH is supposed
>>>> to actually measure infinite behavior.
>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========