Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: The philosophy of computation reformulates existing ideas on a new basis --- EQUIVOCATION Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2024 20:33:40 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 209 Message-ID: References: <086fc32f14bcc004466d3128b0fe585b27377399@i2pn2.org> <11408789ed30027f4bc9a743f353dfa9b4712109@i2pn2.org> <38fdfb81e98cbb31d6dfffddbd5a82eff984e496@i2pn2.org> <750be82de0bb525580577c5ed9ce33a04ad369be@i2pn2.org> <0a36b538765fd0281b7bfe7e289854d8e8759067@i2pn2.org> <9211b826f7b6e9a33e330b1fb665497b257270cf@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2024 02:33:41 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="78d696b0e880e7e96a4aa9625f760657"; logging-data="64332"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19zGZb9MOmVwobhBqhbhLm/" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:Dkx+w41wwV/YnT0yR76LmI7He0o= X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241102-0, 11/1/2024), Outbound message In-Reply-To: <9211b826f7b6e9a33e330b1fb665497b257270cf@i2pn2.org> X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 10442 On 11/2/2024 8:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 11/2/24 9:00 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 11/2/2024 7:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 11/2/24 8:38 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 11/2/2024 7:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 11/2/24 5:13 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 11/2/2024 3:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 11/2/24 12:56 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 11/2/2024 10:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 11/2/24 8:24 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> When the main motive of people like Richard is to derail >>>>>>>>>> any chance of mutual agreement I cannot proceed with all >>>>>>>>>> of the steps achieving mutual agreement on each step one >>>>>>>>>> at a time in their mandatory prerequisite order. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No, my "motive" is to hold cranks to the truth, or at least get >>>>>>>>> them to admit that they are off in some other system, that they >>>>>>>>> can define. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You keep on wanting to be in the system (since it provides the >>>>>>>>> proof of the things you don't like) but can't hold yourself to >>>>>>>>> actually be in the system. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> void DDD() >>>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD); >>>>>>>>>>    return; >>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> _DDD() >>>>>>>>>> [000020a2] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping >>>>>>>>>> [000020a3] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping >>>>>>>>>> [000020a5] 68a2200000 push 000020a2 ; push DDD >>>>>>>>>> [000020aa] e8f3f9ffff call 00001aa2 ; call H0 >>>>>>>>>> [000020af] 83c404     add esp,+04   ; housekeeping >>>>>>>>>> [000020b2] 5d         pop ebp       ; housekeeping >>>>>>>>>> [000020b3] c3         ret           ; never gets here >>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [000020b3] >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> DDD emulated by HHH according to the semantics of the x86 >>>>>>>>>> language cannot possibly reach its own "return" instruction >>>>>>>>>> whether or not any HHH ever aborts its emulation of DDD. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Equivocation between looking at the behavor of DDD being the >>>>>>>>> actual program (which include a particular version of HHH) and >>>>>>>>> the behavior of a PARTIAL emulation of DDD by HHH, which ends >>>>>>>>> up not having the property you want to show. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Partial doesn't lead to showing never. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In other words you continue to perpetually insist on >>>>>>>> the ridiculously stupid idea of requiring the complete >>>>>>>> emulation of a non-terminating input. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I don't think this is: stupidity, ignorance, ADD. >>>>>>>> I don't know what this leaves besides dishonesty with malice. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, you just need to know the RESULTS of the emulation of the >>>>>>> input even if you emulate it for an unlimited number of steps. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes >>>>> >>>>> So, you agree that the results of only the partial emulation done >>>>> by HHH doesn't define the answer, only that of the infinte >>>>> emulation OF THIS EXACT INPUT, defines the behavior, as shown by >>>>> HHH1(DDD) which shows it halts. >>>>> >>>>>>> You don't need to actually do it if you can prove what it would be. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *Yes and ChatGPT agrees* >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>    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. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> https://chatgpt.com/share/67158ec6-3398-8011-98d1-41198baa29f2 >>>>> >>>>> Just admitmits that HHH gets the wrong answer, because you lied, >>>>> because the HHH that DDD calls will also abort and return to DDD, >>>>> so DDD would halt. >>>>> >>>>> Remember, you AGREED above that it is the behavior of the INFINITE >>>>> emulation, not the finite emulation of HHH defines the answer. >>>>> >>>> >>>> A termination analyzer / halt decider must PREDICT >>>> non terminating behavior not measure it. >>>> >>>> If a termination analyzer / halt decider MEASURES >>>> non-terminating behavior IT CANNOT REPORT THIS. >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Of course, that is for this exact input, which uses the copy of H >>>>>>> that does abort and return. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> No it is not. >>>>>> >>>>>>    when HHH simulates DDD(), it's analyzing an >>>>>>    "idealized" version of DDD() where nothing >>>>>>    stops the recursion. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> In other words you are admitting that it isn't actually looking at >>>>> the input it was given. >>>>> >>>> >>>> ChatGPT (using its own words) and I both agree that HHH >>>> is supposed to predict the behavior of the infinite >>>> emulation on the basis of its finite emulation. >>>> >>> >>> Yes, but that behavior is DEFINED by the actual behavior of the >>> actual machine. >>> >> >> No it is not. It is never based on the actual behavior >> of the actual machine for any non-terminating inputs. > > Then you don't undetstand the requirement for something to be a semantic > property. > The actual behavior specified by the finite string input to HHH does include HHH emulating itself emulating DDD such that this DD *not some other DDD somewhere else* cannot possibly reach its own "return" instruction whether HHH emulates DDD forever or some finite number of times. >> >> It has only ever been based on what this input would do >> if its simulation was never aborted. > > Right, which will be exactly what the input will do when run. > > It also means not by changing the copy of the decider the input calls, > as then it its the input it was given. > > If you want to change these properties, you need to first fully define > what you mean by the terms, and show they still meet the basic > requirement needed for this things. > >> >>>> Only a knucklehead would think that HHH is supposed >>>> to actually measure infinite behavior. >>> ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========