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: Philosophy of Computation: Three seem to agree how emulating
 termination analyzers are supposed to work
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2024 15:45:37 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 128
Message-ID: <vgr9i1$ikr6$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vgr1gs$hc36$1@dont-email.me>
 <114d7d0cb5266295ec2c9e9097158d78e5f51dea@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2024 22:45:38 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5e3d204d1939e67d6d9b2cbe8090f3d7";
	logging-data="611174"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+vehaNxuEgFZ5OLK1liXtI"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:J3ph0hZDIaro5aXxw6xq09/+JXE=
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241110-4, 11/10/2024), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <114d7d0cb5266295ec2c9e9097158d78e5f51dea@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 5915

On 11/10/2024 3:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 11/10/24 2:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>> *The best selling author of theory of computation textbooks*
>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>> until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
>> stop running unless aborted then
> 
> Right, if the correct (and thus complete) emulation of this precise 
> input would not halt.
> 

That is what I have been saying for years.
(even though there cannot be such a thing
as the complete emulation of a non-terminating input).

>>
>> H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
> 
> Which your H doesn't do.
> 

It is a matter of objective fact H does abort its
emulation and it does reject its input D as non-halting.
I just ran the code and it does do this.
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c

>>
>> Correct simulation is defined as D is emulated by H according to
>> the semantics of the x86 language thus includes H emulating itself
>> emulating D.
> 
> And also means that it can not be aborted, as "stopping" in the middle 
> is not to the semantics of the x86 language.
> 

Every H, HH, HHH, H1, HH1, and HHH1
(a) Predicts that its input would not stop running unless aborted.
(b) Lets its input continue to run until completion.

> An thus, your H fails to determine that the CORRECT emulation by H will 
> not terminate, since it doesn't do one.
> 
>>
>> I made D simpler so that the key essence of recursive simulation
>> could be analyzed separately. ChatGPT totally understood this.
> 
> Nope, your broke the rules of the field, and thus invalidates your proof.
> 
> Either by passing the address of DDD to HHH implies passing the FULL 
> MEMORY that DDD is in (or at least every part accessed in the emulation 
> of DDD) and thus changed in your
> 
>>
>> void DDD()
>> {
>> HHH(DDD);
>> return;
>> }
>>
>> ChatGPT
>> Simplified Analogy:
>> 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.
> 
> But DDD doesn't call an "ideaized" verision of HHH, 

     If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
     until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
     stop running unless aborted then

     *simulated D would never stop running unless aborted*
     has ALWAYS been this idealized input.

> it calls the exact 
> function defined as HHH, s0 your arguemet is based on false premises, 
> and thus is just a :OE/
> 
>>
>> https://chatgpt.com/share/67158ec6-3398-8011-98d1-41198baa29f2
>> This link is live so you can try to convince ChatGPT that its wrong.
>>
>> On 11/3/2024 12:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>  > On 11/3/24 9:39 AM, olcott wrote:
>>  >>
>>  >> The finite string input to HHH specifies that HHH
>>  >> MUST EMULATE ITSELF emulating DDD.
>>  >
>>  > Right, and it must CORRECTLY determine what an unbounded
>>  > emulation of that input would do, even if its own programming
>>  > only lets it emulate a part of that.
>>  >
>>
>> *Breaking that down into its key element*
>>  > [This bounded HHH] must CORRECTLY determine what
>>  > an unbounded emulation of that input would do...
>>
>> When that input is unbounded that means it is never
>> aborted at any level, otherwise it is bounded at some
>> level thus not unbounded.
>>
> 
> No, because there aren't "levels" of emulation under consideration here. 

There sure the Hell are.
     *simulated D would never stop running unless aborted*
     *simulated D would never stop running unless aborted*
     *simulated D would never stop running unless aborted*
Has always involved levels of simulation when
H emulates itself emulating D

> Only does the emulation that the top level HHH is doing, since 
> everything else is just fixed by the problem.
> 

     *simulated D would never stop running unless aborted*
     *simulated D would never stop running unless aborted*
     *simulated D would never stop running unless aborted*
has always meant reject D

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