On 8/4/24 11:56 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/4/2024 9:33 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:
>
On 02/08/2024 23:42, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:
>
Of course these traces don't support PO's overall case he is claiming,
because the (various) logs show that DDD halts, and that HHH(DDD) reports
DDD as non-halting, exactly as Linz/Sipser argue. Er, that's about it!
PO certainly used to claim that false (non-halting) is the correct
result "even though DDD halts" (I've edited the quote to reflect a name
change). Unless he's changed this position, the traces do support his
claim that what everyone else calls the wrong answer is actually the
right one.
>
So, in your opinion, what do you believe is PO's criterion for "correct
result", exactly? It would be handy if you can give a proper mathematical
definition so nobody will have any doubt what it is. Hey, I know you're
more than capable of getting a definition right, so let's have that
definition!
>
You are joking right?
>
PO has no idea what he's talking about. I mean that more literally than
you might think. The starting point is a gut feeling ("If God can not
solve the Halting Problem, then there is something wrong with the
problem") shored up by a basic axiom
The equivalent paraphrase of this has always been:
The inability to do the logically impossible places
no actual limit on computation.
Which is incorrect, as the admission that it IS logically impossible is itself a limitation on computations.
https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
Professor Hehner and I perfectly agree on this
and he agrees that it is an accurate summary
of the result of his above paper.
And you realize his first paragraph puts his paper outside the topic of Computation Theory, as it deals with question NOT to "computations" but to willful beings (human behavior).
The rules of computtion Theory specificially do not allow for "subjecgtive" questions, as there must be a specific answer that is independent of who you ask the question to.
*I humbly apologize for my harsh words to you*
A stranger that I met last night convinced me that I
should love my enemies. I have no enemies yet can refrain
from ever using harsh words towards my adversaries.
-- that PO is never wrong. This
Never meant that at all ever. I have always been
fully aware that I make many mistakes every day.
Then why do you still refuse to accept that you are worng about this, and have been for decades.
produces a endless sequence of nonsense statements, like
>
"the fact that a computation halts does not entail that it is a
halting computation" [May 2021]
>
"The fact [that] a computation stops running does not prove that it
halts" [Apr 2021]
>
and
>
"The same halt decider can have different behavior on the same input"
[Jan 2021]
>
That does sound stupid.
*As far as effective communication goes I am somewhat of a moron*
void DDD()
{
HHH(DDD);
return;
}
*Here is a better way to phrase what I have been saying*
DDD correctly emulated by any HHH that can possibly
exist never reaches its "return" instruction halt state.
But that only applies *if* the HHH that DDD calls is actually such an HHH, which means it never aborts its emulation.
This also means that it is NOT correct for any HHH to abort and claim by this fact, that the DDD that calls it, is non-halting.
Definition: A TM P given input I is said to "halt" iff ?????
or whatever...
>
Do you really think I can fathom what PO considers to be the "correct
result" in formal terms? He certainly doesn't know (in general) and I
can't even hazard a guess.
>
HHH computes the mapping from the finite string of the x86
machine code of DDD to to the above specified behavior.
Which included the machine code for HHH, and thus if that HHH aborts and returns, the DDD is halting.
It's easy enough to say "PO has his own criterion for halting, which is
materially different from the HP condition, and so we all agree PO is
correct by his own criterion, but that does not say anything about the HP
theorem because it is different from the HP definition".
>
He's been very, very clear about this:
>
"A non-halting computation is every computation that never halts
unless its simulation is aborted. This maps to every element of the
conventional halting problem set of non-halting computations and a few
more."
>
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
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.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
You have agreed that the first part of that has been met showing
that your understanding has always been better than anyone else.
Nope, it is only proven for a input that calls a "decider" that never aborts, since your deciders are not that, they can't use the (non-) fact of them doing a correct simulation (since they don't).
There is something called the "conventional halting problem" and then
there is there is the PO-halting problem.
>
The conventional halting problem has the implied false assumption
that a decider must report on the behavior of the computation that contains itself rather than computing the mapping from its finite
string input to the behavior that this finite string specifies.
But it IS responsible to decide on a computation that contains a copy of its self, as it is responsible for deciding on *ALL* computations (by definitions) and it must be a computation (by definition).
You make up a rule you can not show because you don't understand what you talk about.
He's even explained in detail at least one of these "few more" cases.
He sketched the simulator and explained that false (non-halting) is
correct because of what would happen if line 15 (the check for "needs to
be aborted") were commented out. The "few more" cases are halting
computations that would not halt if the code where a bit different -- if
the "decider" did not stop the simulation.
>
My above example is as simple as I can possibly make it.
That is a far cry from the x86 assembly language trace that
I discussed extensively with the former editor in chief of
CASM Professor Moshe Vardi. He eventually gave up because
he did not understand the x86 language.
No, I suspect he couldn't follow your non-logic. Note, the x86 assembly trace must include ONLY the actual instructions that are executed (not the instructions that this execution have emulated the behavior of, except as a possible parenthetical comment). He gave up, because you claimes were just a lie.
That was in 2020. The last four years have all been about fleshing out
this sketch of a decider for this "other" halting condition. I am
staggered that people are still talking about it. Until he repudiates
the claim that false is the correct answer for some halting
computations, there is nothing more to discuss.
>
I explained it much better above in terms of DDD emulated by HHH.
Which is based on the lie that a partial emulation is a correct emulation that reveal behavior, and conflating the behavior of the given program, that happens to be emulated by HHH, with the emulation that HHH does.
But is that /really/ something PO agrees with?
>
Does he really agree with what he said? Does he agree that there is
"the conventional halting problem" and also his own non-halting that
includes "a few more" computations? Does he agree with himself when he
stated, in Oct 2021, that "Yes that is the correct answer even though
P(P) halts" when asked "do you still assert that H(P,P) == false is the
"correct" answer even though P(P) halts?"?
>
I don't think so somehow,
because I'm pretty sure PO believes his claim "refutes" the HP result.
>
I am sure he still agrees with what he has said, and I am equally sure
he still thinks he has refuted a theorem about something else. He,
literally, has no idea what he is talking about.
>
You are the only one that understood that the first half of the
Sipser approved criteria has been met.
He
wouldn't say that if he freely acknowleded that he had invented a
completely different definition for halting.
>
Why do you say that? Are you assuming he is sane? Remember he has
published a website intended to bring new scripture to the world
(https://the-pete.org/) and has asserted in a court of law (through
lawyers, maybe) that he is God.
>
That has no bearing on the points that I made above.
Also, for what you're saying
to be the right way of looking at things, PO would have to admit that the
HP proof with its standard definition of halting is valid, and that there
is nothing wrong with the Linz proof, other than it not applying to his own
favourite PO-halting definition.
>
Only if you assume his mind functions like yours or mine. Take this
quote on the point you make example:
>
"My current proof simply shows exactly how the exact Peter Linz H
would correctly decide not halting on the exact Peter Linz Ĥ.
>
This definition of halting circumvents the pathological self-reference
error for every simulating halt decider:
>
An input is decided to be halting only if its simulation never needs
to be stopped by any simulating halt decider anywhere in its entire
invocation chain." [May 2021]
>
This last part is correct and Professor Sipser agreed that
it is correct.
You have your conditions wrong.
Every correct simulation will produce the same results, or they are not correct simulations. The input will be a specific machine, and thus it will use a specific decider as part of it, and not just some "any decider". If THAT decider returns, the correct simulation of that input will see that return, and if it doesn't, then it wasn't a decider in the first place.
That you have not yet understood the second halt of the Sipser
approved criteria yet do understand the first part puts you
ahead of everyone else.
Because you can't do the second part if you meet the first, as to meet the first your "decider" must never abort, and a program that never aborts can not abort. If it does, it never meet the first part.
It isn't that we meet the first part until we decide to do the second part, it is we meet the first part, including the knowledge we will do the second part if we can.
He clearly thinks that having a different definition of halting
invalidates Linz's proof.
>
I.e. I think your way of looking at it is a bit "too easy" - but I'd be
happy to be convinced! Personally I suspect PO has no such "new and
different definition" and that anything along those lines PO is thinking of
will be quite incoherent. No doubt you could make some definition that is
at least coherent but we have to ask ourselves - is that definition
/really/ what PO is thinking???
>
There is no doubt that he has a different definition. How could he have
been more clear? There is the conventional halting problem and then
there is what he is considering that includes "a few more" cases. He
clearly tells us that false is the correct answer for some halting
computations. He gives a (flabby) definition of PO-halting and states
that it "circumvents" the proof.
>
It is an empirically verified fact that DDD correctly emulated
by any HHH that can possibly exist cannot possibly reach its
"return" instruction halt state. Every expert in C know this.
Nope.
Nowadays, I think PO's position is more that:
- yes, DDD() halts when run directly
- but DDD() when it runs inside HHH simulator /really/ does not halt, in some kind of
sense that it /really/ has infinite recursion which would never end
however far it was simulated (because it "exhibits" infinite recursion in some way)
I just provided the details of that.
- and yes, DDD() /does/ halt when simulated within UTM(DDD),
- but the behaviour of DDD depends on who is simulating it. It terminates when
UTM simulates it, but doesn't terminate when HHH simulates it, due to some
kind of pathelogical relationship specifically with HHH. This difference in
simulation is /more/ than one simulator aborting earlier than the other...
>
When the halting problem is understood to be that
no halt decider can provide the correct halt status
of any input defined to do the opposite of whatever
value it returns this is impossible to solve.
Which just shows that there ca not be a halt decider, Something thayt seems unable for you to understand,
This also requires the false assumption that a halt
decider must report on the computation that itself
is contained within rather than compute the mapping
from its input finite string.
Which isn't a "false assumption" but part of the definition. It must decide on *ANY* computation, and that include ones that include copies of itself, as it is a computation.
I fear you have got sucked into the PO tar-pit. Until he categorically
repudiates the claim that H(P,P) == false is the correct answer even
though P(P) halts, I would say that there is nothing more to say.
>
It is an empirically verified fact that DDD correctly emulated
by any HHH that can possibly exist cannot possibly reach its
"return" instruction halt state.
Nope, you have shown that the emulation of DDD doesn't reach there, not the DDD that was emulated, as that continues after the emulation stops.
Every expert in C knows this.
Four experts affirmed it, two with MSCS.
Everyone here denies that.
Nope. only idiots it seems.
Obviously his position "evolves" because he has to keep people talking
to him (has is a narcissist and needs the attention). But cranks are
never wrong so he is stuck with what he's said in the past. All of the
last four years has been about layering piles of detail on the basic
notion that if the decider were not to halt the computation, the result
would be a non-halting computation so saying "does not halt" is correct
even though the computation halts.
>
The issue that I have know that I am correct the whole
time and terribly awful at explaining this clearly.
No, you think you are correct, and refuse to look at the actual facts because you have brainwashed yourself.
Sorry, you are just wrong and refuse to look at the facts, just like the election deniers and the climate change deniers.
Hypothetical possibilities
Re: Hypothetical possibilities