Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!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 ---
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2024 12:58:52 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 248
Message-ID: <vgb5hc$12teg$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vfli1h$fj8s$1@dont-email.me> <vflue8$3nvp8$2@i2pn2.org>
 <vfmd8m$k2m7$1@dont-email.me>
 <bcd82d9f8a987d3884220c0df7b8f7204cb9de3e@i2pn2.org>
 <vfmueh$mqn9$1@dont-email.me>
 <ff039b922cabbb6d44f90aa71a52d8c2f446b6ab@i2pn2.org>
 <vfo95k$11qs1$1@dont-email.me> <vfp8c0$3tobi$2@i2pn2.org>
 <vfpbtq$1837o$2@dont-email.me> <vfq4h9$1fo1n$1@dont-email.me>
 <vfqrro$1jg6i$1@dont-email.me> <vfvnbk$2lj5i$1@dont-email.me>
 <vfvudo$2mcse$5@dont-email.me> <vg2c7p$379h1$1@dont-email.me>
 <vg2hei$37lpn$8@dont-email.me> <vg5030$3oo1p$1@dont-email.me>
 <vg56vn$3pnvp$2@dont-email.me> <vg7pab$bqa3$1@dont-email.me>
 <vg81v7$d0a1$2@dont-email.me> <vgaksg$vp4q$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2024 19:58:53 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4c03802f94c328efff99322eacddb6cd";
	logging-data="1144272"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+PfqrlVnH3GXMV1EboMRTi"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:7cwDIFUiWaSsNVPj3rtLbh/fduo=
In-Reply-To: <vgaksg$vp4q$1@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241104-0, 11/3/2024), Outbound message
Bytes: 11460

On 11/4/2024 8:14 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-11-03 14:39:35 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 11/3/2024 6:11 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-11-02 12:46:47 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 11/2/2024 5:49 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-11-01 12:26:58 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/1/2024 5:58 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-10-31 12:50:00 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 10/31/2024 5:49 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-10-29 14:35:34 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/29/2024 2:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-10-29 00:57:30 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/28/2024 6:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/28/24 11:04 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/28/2024 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The machine being used to compute the Halting Function 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has taken a finite string description, the Halting 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Function itself always took a Turing Machine,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is incorrect. It has always been the finite string 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Turing Machine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> description of a Turing machine is the input to the halt 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are always been a distinction between the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abstraction and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> encoding.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, read the problem you have quoted in the past.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ultimately I trust Linz the most on this:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> the problem is: given the description of a Turing machine
>>>>>>>>>>>> M and an input w, does M, when started in the initial
>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration qow, perform a computation that eventually halts?
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP_317-320.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Linz also makes sure to ignore that the behavior of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly simulated by embedded_H cannot possibly reach
>>>>>>>>>>>> either ⟨Ĥ.qy⟩ or ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩ because like everyone else he rejects
>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation out of hand:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> We cannot find the answer by simulating the action of M on w,
>>>>>>>>>>>> say by performing it on a universal Turing machine, because
>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no limit on the length of the computation.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That statement does not fully reject simulation but is 
>>>>>>>>>>> correct in
>>>>>>>>>>> the observation that non-halting cannot be determied in 
>>>>>>>>>>> finite time
>>>>>>>>>>> by a complete simulation so someting else is needed instead 
>>>>>>>>>>> of or
>>>>>>>>>>> in addition to a partial simulation. Linz does include 
>>>>>>>>>>> simulationg
>>>>>>>>>>> Turing machines in his proof that no Turing machine is a halt 
>>>>>>>>>>> decider.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *That people fail to agree with this and also fail to*
>>>>>>>>>> *correctly point out any error seems to indicate dishonestly*
>>>>>>>>>> *or lack of technical competence*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - irrelevant
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 100% perfectly relevant within the philosophy of computation
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Probably but not to anything quoted above.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *THE TITLE OF THIS THREAD*
>>>>>>>> [The philosophy of computation reformulates existing ideas on a 
>>>>>>>> new basis ---]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - couterfactual
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You can baselessly claim that verified facts are counter-factual
>>>>>>>> you cannot show this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your statement was about a situation where "people fail to agree 
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>> this and also fail to correctly point out any error". But that 
>>>>>>> situation
>>>>>>> has not happened as people have identified your errors (perhaps 
>>>>>>> not all
>>>>>>> but at least sufficiently many).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Inconsistent with the currently received view is
>>>>>> certainly not the slightest trace of any error when
>>>>>> examined within the philosophy of computation.
>>>>>
>>>>>> It has always seemed quite ridiculous to me that everyone
>>>>>> here consistently construes the currently received view
>>>>>> as inherently infallible.
>>>>>
>>>>> The currently received view that if you are asked "What is 5 + 6?"
>>>>> then only an answer that tells what 5 + 6 is is correct is infallible.
>>>>
>>>> This is simple enough that people cannot be confused.
>>>> That 5 + 6 == 11 does seem infallibly true.
>>>
>>> So even you can make the ridiculous mistake to regard the currently
>>> received view as infallible?
>>>
>>>>>> They call me stupid and ignorant for not accepting the currently
>>>>>> received view as inherently infallible.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are stupid if you regard your own view as infallible. If you
>>>>> regard something that has been tested and found good as infallible
>>>>> then the risk of error can be small enough.
>>>>
>>>> I have known that equating believable with true is an error
>>>> a great consequence ever since I was 14.
>>>>
>>>> It seems clear that halt deciders must compute the mapping
>>>> from their input finite strings to the actual behavior
>>>> specified by these finite strings.
>>>
>>> It is not clear at all unless you specify how those finite
>>> strings specify the actual behaviour.
>>
>> That is why I used to fully defined semantics of the x86
>> language to make this 100% perfectly unequivocal.
> 
> It does not add any clarity to the last paragraph before
> my previous comment.
> 
>> A few lines of x86 code express complex algorithms
>> succinctly enough that human minds are not totally
>> overwhelmed by far too much tedious detail.
>>
>>> It is not pspecified
>>> in the usual formulation of the problem. Also note that
>>> the behaviour exists before those strings so "describe"
>>> should be and usually is used instead of "specify". The
>>> use of latter may give the false impression that the behaviour
>>> is determined by those strings.
>>>
>>
>> In order for any machine to compute the mapping from
>> a finite string it must to so entirely on the basis
>> of the actual finite string and its specified semantics.
>>
>> The finite string input to HHH specifies that HHH
>> MUST EMULATE ITSELF emulating DDD.
>>
>> The finite string input to HHH1 specifies that HHH1
>> MUST NOT EMULATE ITSELF emulating DDD.
>>
>> Unless HHH rejects its input DDD as non halting the
>> executed DDD never stops running. This itself proves
>> that HHH is correct and that DDD is not the same
>> instance as the one that HHH rejected.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========