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 21:18:50 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 113
Message-ID: <vgrt2q$ptds$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vgr1gs$hc36$1@dont-email.me>
 <114d7d0cb5266295ec2c9e9097158d78e5f51dea@i2pn2.org>
 <vgr9i1$ikr6$1@dont-email.me>
 <06be2ab9cc3801f1b97e9000ce0150aa4a88b520@i2pn2.org>
 <vgrf2h$jtb3$1@dont-email.me>
 <ed90976d73f20c2764c159ec03b27b3db0ecddae@i2pn2.org>
 <vgrj1r$kgn0$1@dont-email.me>
 <f0e1d98f143f3b0f00756a765d7328898a7ef4cc@i2pn2.org>
 <vgrpae$lf0f$1@dont-email.me>
 <fd853510de113d7c5e236b96ecde0e5a5dba2e59@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 04:18:51 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="caa393ed49c937630dd8ea795c5bbe8f";
	logging-data="849340"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18y0STluBvF650esuF14Hl2"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:6bshqaYn/qXzqC9QFFU6/JXU0Zk=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241110-4, 11/10/2024), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <fd853510de113d7c5e236b96ecde0e5a5dba2e59@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6026

On 11/10/2024 9:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 11/10/24 9:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 11/10/2024 7:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 11/10/24 7:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 11/10/2024 6:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 11/10/24 6:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure it can. I did it, when I gave it a CORRECT description of the 
>>>>> problem, it admits that your criteria for HHH is incorrect, and DDD 
>>>>> does halt and HHH should have reported Halting.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When you try to argue that HHH does not correctly determine
>>>> that halt status of DDD within the succinct basis that I
>>>> provided you fail because my reasoning is inherently correct
>>>> within this basis.
>>>>
>>>> You can't even convince it that my basis is based on false
>>>> assumptions it knows better.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which has several lies in it, so makes your proof invalid.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, a correct emulation of ANY program will be the same no matter 
>>>>> what emulator looks at it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No stupid this is not true.
>>>> You are stupid to disagree with the x86 language that
>>>> does proves that HHH emulates itself emulating DDD and
>>>> HHH1 does not emulate itself emulation DDD.
>>>>
>>>> Are you going for a prize of maximum stupidity?
>>>>
>>>
>>> The problem is that you "basis" is just a lie, and doesn't meet the 
>>> requirements for a property to be decided by a decider.
>>>
>>
>> That you think that you can get away with disagreeing with the
>> semantics of the x86 language for termination analyzer HHH
>> seems a little too stupid, thus we seem to be only left with
>> dishonestly.
> 
> WHERE did I disagree with the semantics of the x86 language?
> 
> You are just up to your old lies again.
> 
> The best judge of the x86 language is running the program described by 
> the input on a real CPU.
> 
> DDD() halts, so NOTHING in the x86 semantics can say otherwise, just 
> your LIES where you don't undetstand how computers actually work.
> 

Saying that DDD() halts when you know damn well that
DDD emulated by HHH does not halt is a damned lie that
could get you condemned to actual Hell.

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