Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway? --- Mikes Review

On 6/5/2024 8:47 AM, wij wrote:

On Wed, 2024-06-05 at 08:08 -0500, olcott wrote:

On 6/5/2024 2:08 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-04 17:12:49 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 6/3/2024 9:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/3/24 10:18 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/3/2024 8:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/3/24 9:46 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/3/2024 8:38 PM, Mike Terry wrote:

On 03/06/2024 18:54, olcott wrote:

On 6/3/2024 11:25 AM, Mike Terry wrote:

On 03/06/2024 04:50, olcott wrote:

On 6/2/2024 10:28 PM, Mike Terry wrote:

On 03/06/2024 01:16, immibis wrote:

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.

>
Background:
>
PO claims to have refuted the common HP proof, e.g. as
covered in the Linz book "An Introduction to Formal Languages
and Automata". PO occasionally posts a link to a PDF
containing an extract of the 5 or so pages of the book
containing the proof, but I expect you have access to this or
equivalent.
>
In a nutshell, the proof goes:
-  Suppose H is a TM Halt decider that decides for any input
<P><I> whether
     TM P run with input I on its input tape halts.
     [<P> is the string representation of the actual TM P, and
      <I> is the string representation of input tape I]
-  Construct from H a new TM H^ using the mechanical process
described in the proof.
     If H exists, then its corresponding H^ also exists.
-  Show that the construction of H^ ensures that:
     -  if H decides input <H^><H^> (representing H^ running
with input <H^>) halts,
        then that implies that H^ running with input <H^>
never halts
     -  if H decides input <H^><H^> never halts,
        then that implies H^ running with input <H^> halts
     I.e. either way, H decides the specific input <H^><H^>
incorrectly, contradicting
     the initial assumption that H is a halt decider.
-  So no halt decider exists.  (Every proposed halt decider
decides at least one input case
     incorrectly, viz input <H^><H^>.)
>
PO basically claimed he had a fully coded TM H, which
CORRECTLY decides its "nemesis" input <H^><H^>, contradicting
the logic of the Linz proof [without pointing out any actual
mistake in the Linz proof].  Given most people here
understand the Linz proof well enough to see it is basically
sound, people were sceptical!
>
It turned out PO was lying about the fully coded TM, and in
fact what he actually had was the idea behind a C program
which would "prove" his idea.  A couple of years(?) later he
actually completed his C program and his x86utm.exe which
would simulate the x86 code of his H and H^ to "prove" his
claim.  His equivalent of Linz H is his C function H or HH,
and his equivalent of Linz H^ is his D or DD respectively.
(They run under x86utm.exe and are not Windows/Unix
executables.)
>
H/HH use PARTIAL simulation of their input to decide
halting/non-halting, returning
0 or 1 to communicate their decision.  As you correctly point
out, to the HP proof simulation is quite irrelevant, being
just one kind of data manipulation that H may perform on its
input string <P><I> before it decides the halting status.  So
the Linz HP proof covers such H, no problem.
[I put PARTIAL in caps, just because there seems to be some
confusion in recent threads as to what PO means by
"simulation". He doesn't say it explicitly, despite
suggestions to this effect, but he always means what might be
called /partial/ simulation.]
>
PO believes that by (partially) simulating the computation
corresponding to the input <P><I> [i.e. calculating the
successive x86 instruction steps of the computation P(I)] and
monitoring the progress of virtual x86 state changes (like
instruction address and op-code and so on) H could spot some
pattern that reveals whether computation P(I) halts or not.
At this point in the partial simulation, his H would stop
simulating (aka "abort" the simulation) and return the
appropriate halt status for input <P><I>.
>
Nothing remarkable so far!  Clearly a tight-loop in P /can/
be detected in this fashion, so /some/ <P><I> inputs /can/ be
correctly determined like this.  The PO claim however is that
the specific input <H^><H^> is correctly decided by his H.
In C terms those correspond to H(D,D) correctly returning the
halt status of computation D(D).  [PO would probably dispute
this, because he doesn't properly understand halting or the
HP generally, or in fact pretty much /any abstract concept/ ]
>

>
Introduction to the Theory of Computation, by Michael Sipser
https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-Michael-Sipser/dp/113318779X/
>
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)
>
<Professor Sipser agreed>
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.
</Professor Sipser agreed>
>
I have started working on what seem to be some computability
issues
that you pointed out with my HH. I found that they are
isolated to
one single element of HH. Essentially the details of how the
master
UTM directly executed HH passes a portion of its tape to its
slaves.
>
Nothing else seems to have any computability issues by the
measure
that I am using.
>
Message-ID: <rLmcnQQ3-N_tvH_4nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
On 3/1/2024 12:41 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
  >
  > Obviously a simulator has access to the internal state
  > (tape contents etc.) of the simulated machine. No problem
there.
>
Because of your above comment it seems that correcting this
tiny computability issue with HH is my best path forward.
>
>
>
>
You have given the following a blatantly false review when I
said the same thing another way:

>
I have no idea what you're talking about.  I did not write any
of what follows below.
>
Also I don't believe I said anything "blatantly false".  You're
incapable of judging what other people say or are thinking -
you're often telling people that they'er lying to you and denying
"previously verified facts" etc. but its all rubbish - you're
in no position to make such judgements.
>
>
Mike.
>

>
You said that the execution trace that I proved is correct is
incorrect because you didn't like the way that HH was written.
You said this without looking at my proof as you are doing
here again.

>
An execution trace that is produced by a program that is
incorrect /proves/ nothing whatsoever.  I don't need to look at
your proof, as I was commenting on the value of your program
output AS PROOF.
>

>
I provided the execution trace that HH derives
*AND THE X86 SOURCE-CODE OF DD THAT PROVES THIS TRACE IS CORRECT*
*AND THE X86 SOURCE-CODE OF DD THAT PROVES THIS TRACE IS CORRECT*
*AND THE X86 SOURCE-CODE OF DD THAT PROVES THIS TRACE IS CORRECT*

>
Then why did the trace not follow the call to H?
>

>
HH(DD,DD) the trace does follow the call to HH(DD,DD)
and fully simulates itself simulating DD.

>
So, where are the instuctions of HH shown?
>
I guess you are just a LIAR.
>

>
It might be good for you to quit calling me a liar, everyone here
knows that I am not a liar.

>
Most people here don't care whether you are a liar or a fool.
>

>
Richard understands that:
>
Revelations 21:8 (KJV)
...and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which
burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

 Yield to my GUR. Why struggle so painfully?
After so many lies these years, you finally tell the truth that your emperical
fact that D behaves differently from what H reports (that is what GUR expects).
You seems to have run out of excuses now to claim that the Halting Problem is
wrong and still claim that you are correct. Do you expect your god support you?
Don't be such silly, GUR had said your god cannot help you in this problem.
 

My reasoning is correct and no one has correctly showed any error
in my reasoning with their own reasoning. They try to get away with
the strawman deception of changing the subject as a fake rebuttal.
*This unequivocally proves the behavior of DD correctly simulated by HH*
https://liarparadox.org/DD_correctly_simulated_by_HH_is_Proven.pdf
No one has ever shown otherwise all that anyone has ever provided
is dogmatic assertions entirely bereft of any supporting reasoning.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer