Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Anyone that disagrees with this is not telling the truth --- V5
 --- Professor Sipser
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2024 21:56:00 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <729cc551062c13875686d266a5453a488058e81c@i2pn2.org>
References: <va104l$376ed$4@dont-email.me>
 <cd375f68f97a737988bab8c1332b7802509ff6ea@i2pn2.org>
 <va13po$376ed$7@dont-email.me>
 <d42e5d30ea5f1c067283cb04d8a7293e2117188e@i2pn2.org>
 <va24hl$3cvgv$1@dont-email.me>
 <431deaa157cdae1cae73a1b24268a61cf8ec2c1c@i2pn2.org>
 <va38qh$3ia79$1@dont-email.me>
 <7a1c569a699e79bfa146affbbae3eac7b91cd263@i2pn2.org>
 <va3f7o$3ipp3$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2024 01:56:00 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3290285"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <va3f7o$3ipp3$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 9300
Lines: 216

On 8/20/24 9:17 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/20/2024 7:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 8/20/24 7:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 8/20/2024 6:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 8/20/24 9:09 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 8/19/2024 11:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/19/24 11:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/19/2024 10:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/19/24 10:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> *Everything that is not expressly stated below is*
>>>>>>>>> *specified as unspecified*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Looks like you still have this same condition.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I thought you said you removed it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _DDD()
>>>>>>>>> [00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>>> [00002173] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>>> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
>>>>>>>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
>>>>>>>>> [0000217f] 83c404     add esp,+04
>>>>>>>>> [00002182] 5d         pop ebp
>>>>>>>>> [00002183] c3         ret
>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *It is a basic fact that DDD emulated by HHH according to*
>>>>>>>>> *the semantics of the x86 language cannot possibly stop*
>>>>>>>>> *running unless aborted* (out of memory error excluded)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But it can't emulate DDD correctly past 4 instructions, since 
>>>>>>>> the 5th instruciton to emulate doesn't exist.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And, you can't include the memory that holds HHH, as you mention 
>>>>>>>> HHHn below, so that changes, but DDD, so the input doesn't and 
>>>>>>>> thus is CAN'T be part of the input.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> X = DDD emulated by HHH∞ according to the semantics of the x86 
>>>>>>>>> language
>>>>>>>>> Y = HHH∞ never aborts its emulation of DDD
>>>>>>>>> Z = DDD never stops running
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The above claim boils down to this: (X ∧ Y) ↔ Z
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And neither X or Y are possible.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> x86utm takes the compiled Halt7.obj file of this c program
>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
>>>>>>>>> Thus making all of the code of HHH directly available to
>>>>>>>>> DDD and itself. HHH emulates itself emulating DDD.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which is irrelevent and a LIE as if HHHn is part of the input, 
>>>>>>>> that input needs to be DDDn
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And, in fact,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since, you have just explicitly introduced that all of HHHn is 
>>>>>>>> available to HHHn when it emulates its input, that DDD must 
>>>>>>>> actually be DDDn as it changes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thus, your ACTUAL claim needs to be more like:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> X = DDD∞ emulated by HHH∞ according to the semantics of the x86 
>>>>>>>> language
>>>>>>>> Y = HHH∞ never aborts its emulation of DDD∞
>>>>>>>> Z = DDD∞ never stops running
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The above claim boils down to this: (X ∧ Y) ↔ Z
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes that is correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, you only prove that the DDD∞ that calls the HHH∞ is non-halting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not any of the other DDDn
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your problem is that for any other DDDn / HHHn, you don't have Y 
>>>>>>>> so you don't have Z.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> void EEE()
>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>    HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> HHHn correctly predicts the behavior of DDD the same
>>>>>>>>> way that HHHn correctly predicts the behavior of EEE.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope, HHHn can form a valid inductive proof of the input.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It can't for DDDn, since when we move to HHHn+1 we no longer 
>>>>>>>> have DDDn but DDDn+1, which is a different input.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You already agreed that (X ∧ Y) ↔ Z is correct.
>>>>>>> Did you do an infinite trace in your mind?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But only for DDD∞, not any of the other ones.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you can do it and I can do it then HHH can
>>>>>>> do this same sort of thing. Computations are
>>>>>>> not inherently dumber than human minds.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But HHHn isn't given DDD∞ as its input, so that doesn't matter.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> HHHn is given DDDn as its input,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Remeber, since you said that the input to HHH includes all the 
>>>>>> memory, if that differs, it is a DIFFERENT input, and needs to be 
>>>>>> so marked.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are just admittig that you are just stupid and think two 
>>>>>> things that are different are the same.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *attempts to use misdirection to weasel word around this are 
>>>>> dismissed*
>>>>> *attempts to use misdirection to weasel word around this are 
>>>>> dismissed*
>>>>> *attempts to use misdirection to weasel word around this are 
>>>>> dismissed*
>>>>>
>>>>> <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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Right, so the decider needs top be able to show that its exact input 
>>>> will not halt.
>>>
>>> No it cannot possibly mean that or professor Sipser
>>> would not agreed to the second half:
>>>
>>>      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>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Of course it means that, because Professoer Sipser would have presumed 
>> that you built the machines PROPERLY, so that you COULD think of 
>> changing THIS H to be non-aborting, while the input still used the 
>> final version that it always uses,
>>
> 
> A machine cannot both abort and fail to abort an input
> unless it modifies its own code dynamically.


Right, so HHH must do just one of them, and the DDD that calls it will 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========