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 17:19:45 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 44
Message-ID: <vgrf2h$jtb3$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vgr1gs$hc36$1@dont-email.me>
 <114d7d0cb5266295ec2c9e9097158d78e5f51dea@i2pn2.org>
 <vgr9i1$ikr6$1@dont-email.me>
 <06be2ab9cc3801f1b97e9000ce0150aa4a88b520@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2024 00:19:45 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="caa393ed49c937630dd8ea795c5bbe8f";
	logging-data="652643"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX196YlZJQrTFtq3DhHy5P+e4"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Pwsd6WKd4ZSKY+CEXVX+IA/JM9Q=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <06be2ab9cc3801f1b97e9000ce0150aa4a88b520@i2pn2.org>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241110-4, 11/10/2024), Outbound message
Bytes: 3212

On 11/10/2024 4:53 PM, joes wrote:
> Am Sun, 10 Nov 2024 15:45:37 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>> On 11/10/2024 3:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 11/10/24 2:28 PM, olcott wrote:
> 
>>>> 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.
> If.
> 
>>>> 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.

> And then it returns to the D that called it, which then halts anyway.

Maybe you are not as smart as ChatGPT.
ChatGPT cannot be convinced that HHH was not correct
to reject DDD as non-halting and explains in its own
words why the fact that DDD halts does not change this.

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.

https://chatgpt.com/share/67158ec6-3398-8011-98d1-41198baa29f2
This link is live so you can try to convince ChatGPT that its wrong.

DDD emulated by HHH has different behavior than DDD emulated
by HHH1 and it is becoming psychotic to keep ignoring this.

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