Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Indirect Reference Changes the Behavior of DDD() relative to DDD emulated by HHH Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2024 18:52:27 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <886530a80bd9fa079c015a7dfa9645f9b3604a8a@i2pn2.org> References: <7a1c569a699e79bfa146affbbae3eac7b91cd263@i2pn2.org> <729cc551062c13875686d266a5453a488058e81c@i2pn2.org> <148bf4dd91f32379a6d81a621fb7ec3fc1e00db0@i2pn2.org> <5591ff08ed8f7b4bdf33813681e156b775efe0ec@i2pn2.org> <878qwn0wyz.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <87le0jzc8f.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2024 22:52:28 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="189249"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 In-Reply-To: Bytes: 6391 Lines: 112 On 8/29/24 10:04 AM, olcott wrote: > On 8/29/2024 3:00 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2024-08-28 11:46:58 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> On 8/28/2024 2:33 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2024-08-27 13:04:26 +0000, olcott said: >>>> >>>>> On 8/27/2024 12:45 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>> Am Mon, 26 Aug 2024 18:03:41 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>> On 8/26/2024 7:42 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>> Mike Terry writes: >>>>>>>>> On 23/08/2024 22:07, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> We don't really know what context Sipser was given.  I got in >>>>>>>>>> touch >>>>>>>>>> at the time so I do know he had enough context to know that PO's >>>>>>>>>> ideas were "wacky" and that had agreed to what he considered a >>>>>>>>>> "minor >>>>>>>>>> remark". Since PO considers his words finely crafted and key >>>>>>>>>> to his >>>>>>>>>> so-called work I think it's clear that Sipser did not take the >>>>>>>>>> "minor >>>>>>>>>> remark" he agreed to to mean what PO takes it to mean!  My own >>>>>>>>>> take >>>>>>>>>> if that he (Sipser) read it as a general remark about how to >>>>>>>>>> determine some cases, i.e. that D names an input that H can >>>>>>>>>> partially >>>>>>>>>> simulate to determine it's halting or otherwise.  We all know or >>>>>>>>>> could construct some such cases. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Exactly my reading.  It makes Sipser's agreement natural, >>>>>>>>> because it >>>>>>>>> is both correct [with sensible interpretation of terms], and >>>>>>>>> moreover >>>>>>>>> describes an obvious strategy that a partial decider might use >>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>> can decide halting for some specific cases.  No need for Sipser >>>>>>>>> to be >>>>>>>>> deceptive or misleading here, when the truth suffices.  (In >>>>>>>>> particular >>>>>>>>> no need to employ "tricksy" vacuous truth get out clauses just >>>>>>>>> to get >>>>>>>>> PO off his back as some have suggested.) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes, and it fits with his thinking it a "trivial remark". >>>>>> >>>>>>>> That aside, it's such an odd way to present an argument: "I >>>>>>>> managed to >>>>>>>> trick X into saying 'yes' to something vague".  In any reasonable >>>>>>>> collegiate exchange you'd go back and check: "So even when D is >>>>>>>> constructed from H, H can return based on what /would/ happen if >>>>>>>> H did >>>>>>>> not stop simulating so that H(D,D) == false is correct even >>>>>>>> though D(D) >>>>>>>> halts?".  Just imagine what Sipser would say to that! >>>>>> Is this an accurate phrasing, pete? >>>>> >>>>> Deciders never compute the mapping of the computation >>>>> that they themselves are contained within. >>>> >>>> Why not? A decider always either accepts or rejects its input. >>> >>> The computation that they themselves are contained within cannot >>> possibly be an input. >> >> What would prevent that if the input language permits computations? >> > > When a TM takes its own machine description as input > this is not always that same behavior as the direct > execution of the machine. It is not the same because > it is one level of indirect reference away. LIE. And you have accepted that it is a lie because you have failed to point out the step correctly emulated that differed. > > *How one level of indirect reference changes the answer* > Does this sentence: > "This sentence is not true" > have a truth value? No, it is not a truth bearer. > > Does this sentence: > This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true" > have a truth value? Yes it is true. > >> For example, every computation can be given to an UTM. That computation >> may involve a decider X that uses the same input language. What >> What prevents giving X the same input as the UTM was given? >> > One level of indirect reference away from the > computation itself can have different behavior But there isn't a "indirect reference" in the input, there is an actual copy. > > The direct execution of DDD() has the benefit of > HHH having already aborted its emulation of DDD. > > DDD emulated by HHH does not have this same benefit. > Which doesn't change the BEHAVIOR of the input, just the ability to compute that behavior. The correct emulation of the input doesn't differ from the behavior of the direct execution. You just confuse what the decider can compute with what is reality as you confuse truth with knowledge.