Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connectionsPath: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic Subject: Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway? Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2024 21:09:12 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 163 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2024 04:09:13 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e82f76cbf70c4c740fdbf97a3b1eefca"; logging-data="279167"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18ztYdbhGugiQJuxAcSbzEf" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:3S5+yMUvTXX8VQJ24OSBNQz50ys= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 8564 On 6/3/2024 8:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/3/24 9:54 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/3/2024 8:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/3/24 9:05 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/3/2024 7:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/3/24 8:47 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/3/2024 1:56 PM, Mike Terry wrote: >>>>>>> On 03/06/2024 19:03, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/3/2024 12:36 PM, Mike Terry wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 03/06/2024 08:58, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Op 03.jun.2024 om 02:16 schreef immibis: >>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem says you can't find a Turing machine that >>>>>>>>>>> tells whether executing each other Turing machine will halt. >>>>>>>>>>> Simulation has nothing to do with the question. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Maybe because by using simulation he can shift the attention >>>>>>>>>> from the pathological part of the Linz proof, to another >>>>>>>>>> halting problem, namely that a simulating decider does not >>>>>>>>>> halt because it causes infinite recursion. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> PO's simulating decider does not cause infinite recursion. >>>>>>>>> That only occurs in the case where the decider performs a FULL >>>>>>>>> simulation of its input, whereas typically for PO his H/HH/... >>>>>>>>> perform PARTIAL simulations, where the decider monitors what is >>>>>>>>> being simulated and breaks off the simulation when a particular >>>>>>>>> condition is observed. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks for affirming that. You are my most technically >>>>>>>> competent and honest reviewer. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So yes, there is recursive simulation, but not /infinite/ >>>>>>>>> recursion since at each level of simulation the simulator is >>>>>>>>> free to just stop simulating at any time.  In practice this >>>>>>>>> means that the outer simulator H will be the one to break out, >>>>>>>>> since it will always be ahead of all the inner simulations of H >>>>>>>>> in how far it has progressed.  This situation is in contrast >>>>>>>>> with direct call recursion, where the outer caller has no >>>>>>>>> control to break the recursion - it only regains control once >>>>>>>>> the inner calls have all returned. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> PO does not properly understand this distinction. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *You can keep ignoring this that does not make it go away* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:29:23 AM >>>>>>>> MIT Professor Michael Sipser agreed this verbatim paragraph is >>>>>>>> correct >>>>>>>> (He has neither reviewed nor agreed to anything else in this paper) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D >>>>>>>> specifies a >>>>>>>> non-halting sequence of configurations. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *You can ignore the above forever, that does not make it away* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I do not ignore the above.  I recently posted an example of it: a >>>>>>> simulating HD correctly reporting non-halting after detecting a >>>>>>> tight loop in the computation represented by its input. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The problem with the above is with YOU.  (You >>>>>>> misinterpret/misapply what Sipser says.) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And of course your entire purpose behind quoting the above is >>>>>>> just an appeal to authority.  You know that's a fallacy, because >>>>>>> from time to time you accuse others of doing it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> His own claim that D does not reach the pathological part >>>>>>>>>> (after line 03), displays already that the simulation is >>>>>>>>>> unable to process the pathological part. But the simulation >>>>>>>>>> introduces a new halting problem (recursive simulation), which >>>>>>>>>> he thinks is an answer for the original halting problem. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You're using PO's phrase "pathological" but that is a bad >>>>>>>>> (misleading) term because it suggests there is something >>>>>>>>> WRONG/BAD (aka sick?) in the situation.  E.g. H processing >>>>>>>>> input which is a description of its own source code.  There is >>>>>>>>> nothing whatsoever wrong with that - it's just that PO gets >>>>>>>>> confused by it and so argues to ban it.  Perhaps there  is an >>>>>>>>> alternative term that doesn't have the deliberate connotation >>>>>>>>> of "sickness". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Mike. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Two PhD computer science professors disagree* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> E C R Hehner. *Problems with the Halting Problem*, COMPUTING2011 >>>>>>>> Symposium on 75 years of Turing Machine and Lambda-Calculus, >>>>>>>> Karlsruhe Germany, invited, 2011 October 20-21; Advances in >>>>>>>> Computer Science and Engineering v.10 n.1 p.31-60, 2013 >>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> E C R Hehner. *Objective and Subjective Specifications* >>>>>>>> WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford.  2018 July 18. >>>>>>>> See https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Bill Stoddart. *The Halting Paradox* >>>>>>>> 20 December 2017 >>>>>>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340 >>>>>>>> arXiv:1906.05340 [cs.LO] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *You can ignore the above forever, that does not make it away* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well, it kinda DOES.  This is just a blatant appeal to authority >>>>>>> on your part, so it can rightly be ignored.  I'll say again - if >>>>>>> you have some argument to make, argue it yourself in your own >>>>>>> words rather than attempting to shut down discussion through >>>>>>> appeal to authority. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *Those were my verbatim words that professor Sipser agreed to* >>>>>> All the people that tried to show how I misinterpreted my own words >>>>>> utterly failed. >>>>>> >>>>>> Those that claimed Professor Sipser understood my words >>>>>> differently than >>>>>> I did had only one basis that I remember being presented that is >>>>>> easily >>>>>> proven false. *They tried to get away with contradicting this* >>>>>> >>>>>> DD correctly emulated by any HH that can possibly exist DOES NOT HALT >>>>>> DD correctly emulated by any HH that can possibly exist DOES NOT HALT >>>>>> DD correctly emulated by any HH that can possibly exist DOES NOT HALT >>>>> >>>>> It does. >>>>> >>>>> Has been proven. >>>>> >>>> >>>> *I say that you know you are a liar until after you show the steps* >>> >>> DD will halt (Remember, I am not saying the somulaiton by HH, but >>> that DD itself will halt). >>> >> >> That IS the strawman deception that might possibly (I hope not) >> get you condemned to Hell. >> > > What is strawman about it? > > I am just using the actual definitions that YOU like to ignore and make > lies about. You may condemn yourself to Hell by even asking that question. I hope not. I myself wouldn't risk it. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer