On 9/17/2021 2:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 9/17/21 2:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 9/17/2021 1:27 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On Sat, 4 Sep 2021 17:52:27 -0500
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/4/2021 5:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 9/4/21 6:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/4/2021 5:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/4/21 4:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 9/4/2021 3:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 9/4/21 2:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 9/4/2021 1:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/4/21 1:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/4/2021 12:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/4/21 1:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/4/2021 12:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He says:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If M enters an infinite loop, then no matter how long we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wait, we can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never be sure that M is in fact in a loop. It may simply
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be a case
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> very long computation. What we need is an algorithm that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can determine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the correct answer for any M and w by performing some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> analysis on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine's description and the input. But as we now show,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no such algorithm exists.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus he recognized that the issue with a simulating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider would be it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No he recognized the very obvious issue of using a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulator instead of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a decider. No one besides me has ever considered a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulating halt decider that examines the simulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution trace for non halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patterns of behavior.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, He understood the issues involved. Maybe if you had
>>>>>>>>>>>>> studied some
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the field you would know that the limitation of Halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Deciding by Simulating are WELL known, and have been shown
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be impossible in general.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In the text that you referenced he was only referring to
>>>>>>>>>>>> using a simulator as a decider. He was not referring to
>>>>>>>>>>>> using a simulating decider that examines the execution trace
>>>>>>>>>>>> of the simulation to look for
>>>>>>>>>>>> non halting behavior patterns.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, maybe he doesn't explicitly call it that, but his words
>>>>>>>>>>> definitely
>>>>>>>>>>> reference the well known and studied limitation of simulation
>>>>>>>>>>> for halt
>>>>>>>>>>> deciding.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Of course. If you want to tell if an infinite loops halts you
>>>>>>>>>> sure as Hell can't simply wait and see what happens.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is getting to the point where I am convinced that you are
>>>>>>>>>> simply lying. If you are aware of any source besides me that
>>>>>>>>>> proposes a simulating halt decider that specifically examines
>>>>>>>>>> the execution trace of its simulation to match non-halting
>>>>>>>>>> behavior patterns of its input then PUT UP OR SHUT UP !!!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Most of the stuff I know was pre-internet, so not easy to find.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Here is one example of a reference to this from a decade ago:
>>>>>>>>> https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/27606/detecting-cycles-in-off-line-turing-machines
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This mentions one of the techniques used for detecting SOME
>>>>>>>>> forms of infinite loops.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Here is another person needing to solve the halting problem for
>>>>>>>>> a limited case, and was given a few examples of classical
>>>>>>>>> methods (like detecting repeating state) to detect an infinite
>>>>>>>>> loop.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://try2explore.com/questions/10671161
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And then there is this article on detecting the non-termination
>>>>>>>>> of Turing Machines, to look for solutions to things like the
>>>>>>>>> Busy-Beaver problem:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.5555/1273694.1273703
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> While not specifically a 'simulating Halt Decider' it is trying
>>>>>>>>> to solve
>>>>>>>>> the same basic problem.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe the fact that you refuse to study the field means you
>>>>>>>>>>> don't recognize that, and are dooming yourself to repeating
>>>>>>>>>>> all the mistakes that have been worked through over the
>>>>>>>>>>> century,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> PUT UP OR SHUT UP !!!
>>>>>>>>>> PUT UP OR SHUT UP !!!
>>>>>>>>>> PUT UP OR SHUT UP !!!
>>>>>>>>>> PUT UP OR SHUT UP !!!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Will you now SHUT UP that NO ONE has looked at this before?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My original words included to the same extent that I have.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> None-the-less is seems clear that you now do understand that
>>>>>>>> when Linz referred to a UTM he was only referring to using a UTM
>>>>>>>> as a halt decider, not using a hybrid UTM halt decider that
>>>>>>>> examines the execution trace of its input.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope, because I remember when I was in school, it was already
>>>>>>> established that Simulating Halt Deciding did not show much
>>>>>>> promise as there were serious limits as to what you could detect.
>>>>>>> Linz knew that and knew that mentiones in passing that it
>>>>>>> couldn't know enough to make the decision.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also, since he proved it for ALL Halt deciders, he proved it for
>>>>>>> Simulating Halt Deciders, as those are within the class of Halt
>>>>>>> Deciders, and can't do anything that a 'generic' Halt Decider
>>>>>>> can't do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> None-the-less int main() { H1(P,P); } does correctly report that
>>>>>> its input halts on the basis that H(P,P) does correctly report
>>>>>> that its input never halts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But since H^ was built on H, it is H that needs to get the answer
>>>>> right, not H1, and it doesn't
>>>>>
>>>>> If you want to claim that they are the same machine, you need to
>>>>> explain how they give different answers for the same input, which
>>>>> shows they are Computations.
>>>>>
>>>>>> If you knew the x86 language and software engineering well enough
>>>>>> you would know that the following execution trace of the
>>>>>> simulation of P(P) matches the infinite recursion behavior pattern
>>>>>> and you would know that the infinite recursion behavior pattern is
>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, since it skips over the CONDITIONAL code of H.
>>>>>
>>>>> That code needs to be traced and shown to be unconditional.
>>>>>
>>>>>> THAT YOU SIMPLY DON'T KNOW THESE THINGS WELL ENOUGH IS PROVEN BY
>>>>>> THE FACT THAT YOU ALWAYS CHANGE THE SUBJECT INSTEAD OF DIRECT
>>>>>> POINTING OUT ANY ERROR
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> WRONG. I keep pointing out that you build your arguement on false
>>>>> foundations.
>>>>>   >
>>>>>> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation at Machine Address:c36
>>>>>> [00000c36][002117ca][002117ce] 55          push ebp
>>>>>> [00000c37][002117ca][002117ce] 8bec        mov ebp,esp
>>>>>> [00000c39][002117ca][002117ce] 8b4508      mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>>>> [00000c3c][002117c6][00000c36] 50          push eax       // push P
>>>>>> [00000c3d][002117c6][00000c36] 8b4d08      mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>>>> [00000c40][002117c2][00000c36] 51          push ecx       // push P
>>>>>> [00000c41][002117be][00000c46] e820fdffff  call 00000966  // call
>>>>>> H(P,P)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [00000c36][0025c1f2][0025c1f6] 55          push ebp
>>>>>> [00000c37][0025c1f2][0025c1f6] 8bec        mov ebp,esp
>>>>>> [00000c39][0025c1f2][0025c1f6] 8b4508      mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>>>> [00000c3c][0025c1ee][00000c36] 50          push eax       // push P
>>>>>> [00000c3d][0025c1ee][00000c36] 8b4d08      mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>>>> [00000c40][0025c1ea][00000c36] 51          push ecx       // push P
>>>>>> [00000c41][0025c1e6][00000c46] e820fdffff  call 00000966  // call
>>>>>> H(P,P) Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation
>>>>>> Stopped
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This infinite recursion detection criteria are met by the above
>>>>>> execution trace:
>>>>>> (a) P calls H twice in sequence from the same machine address.
>>>>>> (b) With the same parameters: (P,P) to H.
>>>>>> (c) With no conditional branch or indexed jump instructions in the
>>>>>> execution trace of P.
>>>>>
>>>>> Only because the trace is incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>>> (d) We know that there are no return instructions in H because we
>>>>>> know that H is in pure simulation mode.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The H can NEVER answer even as a top level machine, so THAT is
>>>>> false too.
>>>>>
>>>>> Remember there is no such thing a 'Pure Simulator Mode', something
>>>>> is or it isn't a Pure Simulator. H isn't if it ever answer H(H^,H^)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That the entire time that the halt decider is making its halt status
>>>> decision the halt decider has no behavior what-so-ever that can have
>>>> any effect on the behavior of its simulated input seems to be beyond
>>>> your intellectual capacity to comprehend.
>>>
>>> The ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy: attack the argument and not
>>> the person and progress might be made.
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>
>> It seems to be an objective fact that most people here simply do not
>> want an honest dialogue and/or lack the intellectual capacity /
>> prerequisite knowledge to comprehend what is being said.
>>
>> This is assessed on the basis that no actual valid reasoning is applied
>> as rebuttals to my ideas. Most of the fake rebuttals are the dishonest
>> dodge tactic of changing the subject rather than directly addressing any
>> key points that have been made, AKA the strawman error:
>>
>> A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an
>> informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument,
>> whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted,
>> but instead replaced with a false one.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
>>
>
> It is an objective fact that MANY actual valid rebuttals have been made
> to your arguements,
Gullible fools may believe this.

Gullible fools are not bright enough to recognize a subtle case of the
strawman error.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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