Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Fred. Zwarts" Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Indirect Reference Changes the Behavior of DDD() relative to DDD emulated by HHH Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2024 19:44:52 +0200 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 193 Message-ID: References: <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: Mon, 02 Sep 2024 19:44:53 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="692047d1739acfbfb1f7dce4a5e931bd"; logging-data="3088279"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+DAal0WUHN3XTPco+HarAF" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:JhHojou0DU53y1+Dy2OO3LLI+es= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-GB Bytes: 10239 Op 02.sep.2024 om 15:42 schreef olcott: > On 9/1/2024 5:48 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >> Op 31.aug.2024 om 18:15 schreef olcott: >>> On 8/31/2024 10:47 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>> Op 31.aug.2024 om 17:22 schreef olcott: >>>>> On 8/31/2024 10:15 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>> Op 31.aug.2024 om 14:50 schreef olcott: >>>>>>> On 8/30/2024 8:31 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2024-08-29 14:04:05 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Now you contradict what you said above. You said that deciders >>>>>>>> never >>>>>>>> conpute the mapping of the computation they themselves are >>>>>>>> contained >>>>>>>> within. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Although deciders cannot possibly see their own behavior >>>>>>> other people can see this behavior. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Now you are saying that they do in a way that might not be >>>>>>>> as expected. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If is a verified fact that DDD has different behavior >>>>>>> before it is aborted in the same way that people are >>>>>>> hungry before they eat. >>>>>> >>>>>> No, the behaviour specified by the finite string does not change >>>>>> when a simulator decides to do the simulation only halfway. It is >>>>>> just an incorrect simulation. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> than the behavior of DDD after it has been aborted, >>>>>>> people are not hungry after they eat. >>>>>> >>>>>> If two people are hungry and one of them eats, the other one is >>>>>> still hungry and needs to eat. It is stupid to say that they are >>>>>> no longer hungry because they have eaten. >>>>>> Similarly the simulating HHH is not longer hungry, but the >>>>>> simulated HHH still is hungry and has not yet eaten. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The direct execution of DDD includes the behavior >>>>>>> of the emulated DDD after it has been aborted. >>>>>> >>>>>> And the simulator should also simulate until it sees the behaviour >>>>>> of after the simulated HHH has aborted its simulator. >>>>> >>>>> THIS IS ONLY YOUR OWN FREAKING STUPIDITY. >>>> No evidence for this ad hominem attack. So, my claim still stands. >>> >>> People that are not as stupid can see that HHH cannot >>> wait for itself to abort its own simulation. >>> >> >> And people (except the stupid ones) can see that, because HHH cannot >> wait for itself, > > Because this would require it to wait forever, > thus HHH knows that to meet its own requirement > to halt it must abort its simulation. > >> this means that HHH failed to simulate itself correctly > > You are either very stupid or a damned liar about this. > As long as HHH emulates its input according to the semantics > of the x86 language HHH is correctly emulating this input > even if this correct emulation causes the computer to catch > on fire. > > AS I HAVE TOLD YOU FAR TOO MANY TIMES > CORRECT EMULATION IS ENTIRELY DETERMINED > BY THE SEMANTICS OF THE X86 LANGUAGE. Yes, but I don't understand why HHH, programmed by Olcott himself violates the semantics of the x86 language, by skipping the last few instructions of the halting program? > > When DDD calls HHH(DDD) then HHH must emulate > itself emulating DDD. If this causes the emulated > HHH to never return ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========