Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  nodelist  faq  login

Linus? Whose that? -- clueless newbie on #Linux


computers / comp.ai.philosophy / Re:_Scientific_reasoning_H(P,P)_and_Ĥq0_⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩

SubjectAuthor
* Re: _Scientific_reasoning_H(P,P)_and_Ĥq0_⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩olcott
`- Re: _Scientific_reasoning_H(P,P)_and_Ĥq0_olcott

1
Subject: Re:_Scientific_reasoning_H(P,P)_and_Ĥq0_⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, sci.logic, comp.ai.philosophy
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2021 13:33 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!tr1.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr1.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2021 08:33:20 -0500
Subject: Re:_Scientific_reasoning_H(P,P)_and_Ĥq0_⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic,comp.ai.philosophy
References: <3I-dnaQ9RPAUG-z8nZ2dnUU7-ffNnZ2d@giganews.com> <28c28329-e8f7-4390-89ed-2b5bbece6636n@googlegroups.com> <s6KdnVMGbY-2Auz8nZ2dnUU7-YXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sks8rl$mbk$1@dont-email.me> <jvidnWsBsK8BNuz8nZ2dnUU7-L3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sksgq3$6m7$1@dont-email.me> <PqGdnZPidYuuTez8nZ2dnUU7-WnNnZ2d@giganews.com> <skskgn$nlh$1@dont-email.me> <D4SdnYNAw7-rRez8nZ2dnUU7-Y3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sksn28$a1d$1@dont-email.me> <eZCdndJZ0c5Hf-z8nZ2dnUU7-R2dnZ2d@giganews.com> <sksok2$m2l$1@dont-email.me> <SfKdnbGfC63Kdez8nZ2dnUU7-TWdnZ2d@giganews.com> <sksr4o$kon$1@dont-email.me> <z8OdnSWcCKO4a-z8nZ2dnUU7-QOdnZ2d@giganews.com> <skt1p7$tpn$1@dont-email.me> <NdudnY-ezNA7kO_8nZ2dnUU7-ePNnZ2d@giganews.com> <%MxcJ.6731$e_6.3745@fx36.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2021 08:33:19 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <%MxcJ.6731$e_6.3745@fx36.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <xI-dnVtXIdk9IO_8nZ2dnUU7-bvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 92
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-un716QjM+mw1yBxaisDyi24qru0XhE1hrBNuF9mSXVDsk6nF/IG0NiUJMpZig9iP5+Jhmp8tqzR9ijZ!Ru1gltsAC3JxNIniDnkz14xuF75c5qEvTDiDGoGnm9kO/xL+cW2cMmYeIGHiVA1lSYfQfeaGbWY=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 5381
View all headers
On 10/22/2021 7:04 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/21/21 9:02 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/21/2021 7:48 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2021-10-21 17:22, olcott wrote:
On 10/21/2021 5:55 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2021-10-21 16:23, olcott wrote:
On 10/21/2021 5:12 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2021-10-21 15:59, olcott wrote:
On 10/21/2021 4:45 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2021-10-21 15:14, olcott wrote:

So then you are aware that we can attain logical certainty of the truth of some expressions of language entirely on the basis of the semantic meaning of these expressions of language?

Sure, for a relatively small and largely uninteresting set of sentences. But that isn't part of epistemology, which isn't concerned with the evaluation of linguistic expressions.

André


Do you understand that a TM that never reaches its final state is a TM that never halts?

Yes, which has nothing to do with anything I posted above.

How bout them Mets?

André


q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥqn
We can tell that Ĥq0 correctly determines the halt status of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ entirely on the basis of the meaning of the words.

"We" certainly cannot. Which words are you even referring to here?

André



Self-evident truths:  (a & b)
(a) We know that a TM that never reaches its final state never halts.

That's not a 'self-evident truth'. That's just the definition of halting.

An expression of language is self-evidently true when it is verified as completely rue entirely on the basis of its meaning.

(b) When it is verified that the simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ never    reaches it final state (whether or not its simulation is aborted) then we know that Ĥq0 correctly aborts the simulation of its input and transitions to qn.

Assuming for sake of argument that (b) is correct, how does that allow us to tell that "Ĥq0 correctly determines the halt status of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ entirely on the basis of the meaning of the words."?

André


If X necessitates Y and X then Y.



Except you have two DIFFERENT things you are calling X.

in (a) it is that a TM (itself) that never reaches its final state

in (b) it is that a (partial) simulation of H^

A partial simulation is not the TM itself.


The huge flaw in your reasoning is that it would conclude that an actual infinite loop that is not infinitely simulated cannot be correctly determined to be an infinite loop.

As soon as the halt decider correctly determines that a pure simulation of either an infinite loop or H(P,P) or Ĥq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ would never end then it necessarily correctly stops this simulation and reports not halting in both cases.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein


Subject: Re:_Scientific_reasoning_H(P,P)_and_Ĥq0_⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ [ infinite loops ]
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, sci.math, sci.logic
Followup: comp.theory
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2021 17:53 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2021 12:53:10 -0500
Subject: Re:_Scientific_reasoning_H(P,P)_and_Ĥq0_
⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ [ infinite loops ]
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.math,sci.logic
References: <3I-dnaQ9RPAUG-z8nZ2dnUU7-ffNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<s6KdnVMGbY-2Auz8nZ2dnUU7-YXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sks8rl$mbk$1@dont-email.me>
<jvidnWsBsK8BNuz8nZ2dnUU7-L3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sksgq3$6m7$1@dont-email.me>
<PqGdnZPidYuuTez8nZ2dnUU7-WnNnZ2d@giganews.com> <skskgn$nlh$1@dont-email.me>
<D4SdnYNAw7-rRez8nZ2dnUU7-Y3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sksn28$a1d$1@dont-email.me>
<eZCdndJZ0c5Hf-z8nZ2dnUU7-R2dnZ2d@giganews.com> <sksok2$m2l$1@dont-email.me>
<SfKdnbGfC63Kdez8nZ2dnUU7-TWdnZ2d@giganews.com> <sksr4o$kon$1@dont-email.me>
<z8OdnSWcCKO4a-z8nZ2dnUU7-QOdnZ2d@giganews.com> <skt1p7$tpn$1@dont-email.me>
<NdudnY-ezNA7kO_8nZ2dnUU7-ePNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<%MxcJ.6731$e_6.3745@fx36.iad>
<xI-dnVtXIdk9IO_8nZ2dnUU7-bvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ZzHcJ.7383$Np3.4912@fx06.iad>
<fJydnfc4l4bzFe78nZ2dnUU7-U_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <X1RcJ.9506$NT.3914@fx04.iad>
<V4mdnbZbzqorjOn8nZ2dnUU7-YmdnZ2d@giganews.com> <s7WcJ.713$GN.709@fx21.iad>
<MtednY4tPp39oun8nZ2dnUU7-LnNnZ2d@giganews.com> <lpXcJ.24$0H4.18@fx24.iad>
Followup-To: comp.theory
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2021 12:53:09 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <lpXcJ.24$0H4.18@fx24.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <8OCdnV4D9YCb0en8nZ2dnUU7-LPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 169
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-JWlE4p51YIiksNUyU5KV0aPCwdCxdZDGf10SKo/alWmgz+gThi3Y02pKOVDdqUJEeOw9VzYRThCYgBS!4VUjFkiGJ5sn21Lfid1i4DWxO+8VqDS5Ey7lYsP43ibY9GXVBcDW6lFBgK/GFMz2YrFPvON8N80=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 9106
View all headers
On 10/23/2021 12:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/23/21 12:59 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/23/2021 10:46 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/23/21 9:44 AM, olcott wrote:
On 10/23/2021 4:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/22/21 11:58 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/22/2021 6:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/22/21 9:33 AM, olcott wrote:
On 10/22/2021 7:04 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/21/21 9:02 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/21/2021 7:48 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2021-10-21 17:22, olcott wrote:
On 10/21/2021 5:55 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2021-10-21 16:23, olcott wrote:
On 10/21/2021 5:12 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2021-10-21 15:59, olcott wrote:
On 10/21/2021 4:45 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2021-10-21 15:14, olcott wrote:

So then you are aware that we can attain logical certainty of the truth of some expressions of language entirely on the basis of the semantic meaning of these expressions of language?

Sure, for a relatively small and largely uninteresting set of sentences. But that isn't part of epistemology, which isn't concerned with the evaluation of linguistic expressions.

André


Do you understand that a TM that never reaches its final state is a TM that never halts?

Yes, which has nothing to do with anything I posted above.

How bout them Mets?

André


q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥqn
We can tell that Ĥq0 correctly determines the halt status of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ entirely on the basis of the meaning of the words.

"We" certainly cannot. Which words are you even referring to here?

André



Self-evident truths:  (a & b)
(a) We know that a TM that never reaches its final state never halts.

That's not a 'self-evident truth'. That's just the definition of halting.

An expression of language is self-evidently true when it is verified as completely rue entirely on the basis of its meaning.

(b) When it is verified that the simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ never    reaches it final state (whether or not its simulation is aborted) then we know that Ĥq0 correctly aborts the simulation of its input and transitions to qn.

Assuming for sake of argument that (b) is correct, how does that allow us to tell that "Ĥq0 correctly determines the halt status of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ entirely on the basis of the meaning of the words."?

André


If X necessitates Y and X then Y.



Except you have two DIFFERENT things you are calling X.

in (a) it is that a TM (itself) that never reaches its final state

in (b) it is that a (partial) simulation of H^

A partial simulation is not the TM itself.


The huge flaw in your reasoning is that it would conclude that an actual infinite loop that is not infinitely simulated cannot be correctly determined to be an infinite loop.


No, that is NOT what I am saying, but you need to use a PROPER proof that the loop actual is infinite.


// This is complete proof.
HERE: goto HERE;

The fact that an aborted simulation doesn't reach a halting state is NOT

This is where you are always much much dumber than a box of rocks.
When I say that you have attention deficit disorder this is not meant to be an insult. It is something that you should really look into.

What, the fact that I actually KNOW something bothers your. Maybe you should look into actually learning what is the truth.

We can know that an infinite simulation would never end using the same sort of a process that we use to determine that an infinite loop would never end. I have explained this many dozens of times.

Except that we know that IF H actually did what you said and never aborted, then H(<H^>,<H^>) would never answer, and if H(<H^>,<H^>) does abort top answer that H^(<H^>) does halt.


Likewise with the infinite loop.


Right, you don't get to 'prove' that you are right by looking at bad version of your design and say that they don't work.

So in other words you are confirming that you believe that it is impossible for a simulating halt decider to correctly determine that an infinite loop never halts?

void Infinite_Loop()
{
   HERE: goto HERE;
}

_Infinite_Loop()
[00000ab0](01)  55              push ebp
[00000ab1](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
[00000ab3](02)  ebfe            jmp 00000ab3
[00000ab5](01)  5d              pop ebp
[00000ab6](01)  c3              ret
Size in bytes:(0007) [00000ab6]



You like that strawman. I guess it makes some sense as we aproach Halloween.

You seem to be under the totally mistaken impression that just because something works for one case, it means that it works for all cases.

You rejected that H(P,P) can be decided by a simulating halt decider on the basis that if the simulation never halts then the simulating halt decider never returns its halts status and if the simulating halt decider does return its halt status then the input halts.

A simulating halt decider correctly decides that H(P,P) never halts on the same kind of axiomatic basis that it decides that an infinite loop never halts. Because of this it decides both cases correctly.


--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein


1
rocksolid light 0.7.2
clearneti2ptor