Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic Subject: Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 22:29:18 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 166 Message-ID: References: <87jzidm83f.fsf@bsb.me.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 05:29:19 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="863b71206377856c10e8f571e9178830"; logging-data="2072950"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19wGNqUfmigkCSm0/q8uSeM" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:ME2bN3AxzEDwprmIA0VGPwudP78= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 8373 On 6/25/2024 9:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/25/24 10:29 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/25/2024 9:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/25/24 10:05 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/25/2024 8:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/25/24 1:45 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/25/2024 9:46 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>> Hi, Ben. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>> Alan Mackenzie writes: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2024 4:22 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Am Sat, 22 Jun 2024 13:47:24 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/22/2024 1:39 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 21.jun.2024 om 15:21 schreef olcott: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct >>>>>>>>>>>> emulation is the >>>>>>>>>>>> semantics of the x86 programming language then we see that >>>>>>>>>>>> when DDD is >>>>>>>>>>>> correctly emulated by H0 that its call to H0(DDD) cannot >>>>>>>>>>>> possibly >>>>>>>>>>>> return. >>>>>>>>>>> Yes. Which is wrong, because H0 should terminate. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [ .... ] >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated >>>>>>>>>> by H0 cannot possibly return. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Until you acknowledge this is true, this is the >>>>>>>>>> only thing that I am willing to talk to you about. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think you are talking at cross purposes.  Joes's point is >>>>>>>>> that H0 >>>>>>>>> should terminate because it's a decider.  You're saying that >>>>>>>>> when H0 is >>>>>>>>> "correctly" emulating, it won't terminate.  I don't recall >>>>>>>>> seeing anybody >>>>>>>>> arguing against that. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So you're saying, in effect, H0 is not a decider.  I don't >>>>>>>>> think anybody >>>>>>>>> else would argue against that, either. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> He's been making exactly the same nonsense argument for years.  It >>>>>>>> became crystal clear a little over three years ago when he made the >>>>>>>> mistake of posting the pseudo-code for H -- a step by step >>>>>>>> simulator >>>>>>>> that stopped simulating (famously on line 15) when some pattern was >>>>>>>> detected.  He declared false (not halting) to be the correct >>>>>>>> result for >>>>>>>> the halting computation H(H_Hat(), H_Hat()) because of what >>>>>>>> H(H_Hat(), >>>>>>>> H_Hat()) would do "if line 15 were commented out"! >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> PO does occasionally make it clear what the shell game is. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think it's important for (relative) newcomers to the newsgroup to >>>>>>> become aware of this.  Each one of them is trying to help PO >>>>>>> improve his >>>>>>> level of learning.  They will eventually give up, as you and I have >>>>>>> done, recognising (as Mike Terry, in particular, has done) that >>>>>>> enriching PO's intellect is a quite impossible task. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What's the betting he'll respond to this post with his usual short >>>>>>> sequence of x86 assembly code together with a demand to recognise >>>>>>> something or other as non-terminating? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Ben. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>      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. >>>>>> >>>>> 10/13/2022> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>  > I don't think that is the shell game. PO really /has/ an H >>>>>>  > (it's trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines >>>>>>  > that P(P) *would* never stop running *unless* aborted. >>>>>>  > >>>>>>  > He knows and accepts that P(P) actually does stop. The >>>>>>  > wrong answer is justified by what would happen if H >>>>>>  > (and hence a different P) where not what they actually are. >>>>>>  > >>>>>> >>>>>> Ben thinks that I tricked professor Sipser into agreeing >>>>>> with something that he did not fully understand. >>>>>> >>>>>> *The real issue is that no one here sufficiently understands* >>>>>> *the highlighted portion of the following definition* >>>>>> >>>>>> Computable functions are the formalized analogue of the >>>>>> intuitive notion of algorithms, in the sense that a >>>>>> function is computable if there exists an algorithm >>>>>> that can do the job of the function, i.e. >>>>>> >>>>>> *given an input of the function domain* >>>>>> *it can return the corresponding output* >>>>>> >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> But only if the function is, in fact, computable. >>>>> >>>>> Since Halting isn't, you can't use that fact. >>>> >>>> If I ask you: What time is it? >>>> and you do not tell me the answer to the question hidden >>>> in my mind "What did you have for dinner?" We cannot say >>>> that you provided the wrong answer when you tell me what >>>> time it is. >>> >>> Because I answered the actual question. >>> >>> Just like the "Halt Decider" needs to answer the "Halt Decider >>> Question" and not answer about POOP. >>> >>>> >>>> When we ask H to tell us whether its actual input halts >>>> H can only answer that P correctly simulated by H will not halt. >>>> H cannot answer the question hidden in your mind. >>>> >>> >>> Then you are just admitting that it can't be a Halt Decider. >>> >>> If it isn't what the definition requires, it just isn't one. >>> >> >> Yes and everyone knows that computer scientists are much >> more infallible than God thus cannot possibly ever make >> a definition that is incoherent in ways that these 100% >> infallible computer scientists never noticed. >> > > Except you can't show that the definition IS incoherent, In a way that your limited understanding can comprehend. You are so sure that I must be wrong that you cannot possibly pay close enough attention to the exact words that I say. My point is entirely proven by how a set of finite string transformations map one finite string to another. > just that *YOU* > can't understand it. > > That is YOUR problem, not the problem of the definition. > > > -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer