Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.theory > #135623

Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself

Show all headers | View raw

On 2025-11-14, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/14/2025 2:23 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2025-11-14, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/14/2025 1:57 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>> On 2025-11-14, olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Assuming that HHH(DDD) "correctly simulates" DDD, and assuming it
>>>>>> does nothing else, your code would be equivalent to this:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>        void DDD(void) {
>>>>>>            DDD();
>>>>>>            return;
>>>>>>        }
>>>>
>>>> That assumption does not hold; HHH does not correctly simulate DDD.
>>>> HHH /partially/ simulates DDD and then returns 0.
>>>>
>>>> You are back back to equivocating from an aborting HHH to non-aborting.
>>>>
>>>> Ask Keith again about an aborting HHH such that HHH(DDD) returns 0.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So you don't understand that it is impossible
>>> for any HHH to return any value to any DDD
>>> simulated by HHH?
>> 
>> One thing at a time!
>> 
>> For a HHH that is aborting/returning, void DDD(void) { DDD(); return; }
>> is not equivalent to DDD(void) { HHH(DDD); return; }
>> 
>> Now, under no simulating H (aborting or not) does the /simulation/ of
>> the diagonal case reach the return out of H: that much is true.
>> 
>> The simulated function does reach the return; the simulation just has to
>> be continued to perform those steps.
>> 
>> Under a non-aborting H (H(D) equivalent to UTM(D)), D is
>> non-terminating. If the abandoned simulation of D is continued, it
>> will not end no matter how many additional steps are simulated.
>> 
>> In that sense, then, that situation is equivalent to other non-terminating
>> situations like D() { D(); } (same as Infinite_Recursion).
>> 
>> That's almost certainly what Keith was talking about.
>> 
>
> Yes and isomorphic to DD simulated by simulating
> termination analyzer HHH. DD simulated by HHH
> cannot possibly reach its "return" statement final
> halt state no matter what HHH does conclusively
> proving that HHH can unload DD from memory and
> reject it.

However, the fact that the DD simulation doesn't step far enough
for the DD return statement to be reached, has nothing to do with
the choice of abort criteria.

It holds even for a H that simply calls DebugStep a fixed number
of times:

  for (int i = 0; i < 3; i++) 
  {
     DebugStep(master_state, slave_state, decoded);
  }
  return 0;

If that is H, the simulated such H does not reach the return 0.

Because the simulating H abovre also only performs three
steps and that's not enough to push through the above loop
and return statement.

The instruction step budget of N imposed by H is never enough to trace
the execution of H on the same input case.

All of the above has nothing to do with whether the test case terminates
or not (it does), or whether you have correct abort criteria. (You
don't.)

> https://claude.ai/share/a7399b3b-fc35-4294-b342-9859a1d62e4b
>
> Claude gave my a lot of push-back before it finally

This is a wrong behavior.

To prevent the social problem of cranks deceiving themselves with AI,
chat AI agents should end the conversation after the user insists in the
face of three or four pushbacks.

Several years ago, Microsoft's integration of GPT-3 and 4 into
the Edge browser was like this.

It had a detector for meandering, nonproductive conversations
that go in circles and would cut off the conversation, suggesting
that the user start a conversation about something else. After
that, no more input would ba accepted in that conversation window.

Since token limits and conversation length limits have been
lifting, that rule seems to have disappeared; you can now "brow-beat"
the AI into producing output that has the interpretation of agreeing
with anything. That's a pity.

Back to comp.theory | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2025-11-14 13:52 -0600
  Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-14 19:57 +0000
    Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 14:11 -0600
      Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-14 20:23 +0000
        Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 14:44 -0600
          Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-14 21:40 +0000
            Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 16:05 -0600
              Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 02:35 +0000
                Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 21:10 -0600
                Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 03:51 +0000
                Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 12:57 +0800
                Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 13:23 +0800
                Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 23:25 -0600
                Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 05:37 +0000
                Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 23:48 -0600
                Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 06:47 +0000
                Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 10:36 -0600
                Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-15 16:27 +0000
                Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 10:43 -0600
                Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 18:11 +0000
                Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 12:58 -0600
                Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 20:11 +0000
                Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 14:22 -0600
                Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 21:33 +0000
                Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 15:49 -0600
                Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 22:08 +0000
                Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 14:15 -0800
                Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 17:26 -0600
  Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 21:34 -0800
    Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 23:42 -0600
      Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 06:54 +0000
        Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 10:38 -0600
          Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 18:07 +0000
            Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 12:55 -0600
              Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 20:17 +0000
                Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 13:11 -0800
    Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-15 13:57 +0000
      Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 16:36 -0800
        Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 19:00 -0600
  Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself HAL 9000 <hal@discovery.nasa> - 2025-11-16 00:56 +0000
    Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 19:14 -0600
      Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself HAL 9000 <hal@discovery.nasa> - 2025-11-16 12:42 +0000
        Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 09:29 -0600
          Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself HAL 9000 <hal@discovery.nasa> - 2025-11-16 16:46 +0000
            Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 11:07 -0600
            Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-11-16 17:11 +0000
              DD simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate normally olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 11:20 -0600
              Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself HAL 9000 <hal@discovery.nasa> - 2025-11-16 18:40 +0000
              Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-16 18:43 +0000
            Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 13:18 -0800

csiph-web