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: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Should
 I quit Richard at this point?
Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2024 10:54:11 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v41raj$3cg3t$25@i2pn2.org>
References: <v3j20v$3gm10$2@dont-email.me>
 <J_CdnTaA96jxpcD7nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <87h6eamkgf.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <v3kcdj$3stk9$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3l7uo$13cp$8@dont-email.me> <v3lcat$228t$3@dont-email.me>
 <v3mq9j$chc3$1@dont-email.me> <v3mrli$chc4$1@dont-email.me>
 <_gWdnbwuZPJP2sL7nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <v3nkqr$h7f9$3@dont-email.me> <v3p4ka$sk6h$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3pp7p$v133$8@dont-email.me> <v3s27e$1f9kd$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3sf1n$1gra7$11@dont-email.me> <v3sjo9$1ialb$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3skoo$1iedv$1@dont-email.me> <v3u9ej$1v7rn$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3v6i7$23l33$1@dont-email.me> <v3ve38$259cg$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3vf0b$24orn$4@dont-email.me> <v40u4u$2gi7t$1@dont-email.me>
 <v41k6l$2jqdk$8@dont-email.me> <v41l89$3cg3t$12@i2pn2.org>
 <v41nei$2kanc$8@dont-email.me> <v41oo8$3cg3t$22@i2pn2.org>
 <v41pbc$2kanc$15@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2024 14:54:11 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3555453"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v41pbc$2kanc$15@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 12309
Lines: 249

On 6/8/24 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/8/2024 9:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/8/24 9:48 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/8/2024 8:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/8/24 8:52 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/8/2024 1:36 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-06-07 17:11:39 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 6/7/2024 11:56 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-06-07 14:47:35 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2024 1:30 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-06-06 15:31:36 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/6/2024 10:14 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-06-06 13:53:58 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/6/2024 5:15 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-06-05 13:29:28 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2024 2:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-06-04 18:02:03 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *HOW PARTIAL SIMULATIONS CORRECTLY DETERMINE NON-HALTING*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:29:23 AM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MIT Professor Michael Sipser agreed this verbatim 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paragraph is correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (He has neither reviewed nor agreed to anything else in 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this paper)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Professor Sipser agreed>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> </Professor Sipser agreed>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is quite clear what Professor Sipser agreed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Those were my verbatim words that he agreed to, no one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has ever correctly provided any alternative interpretation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that could possibly make my own HH(DD,DD)==0 incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One can agree with those words because they are both clear 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whether they are sufficient to your purposes is another 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is nor relevant to their acceptablility.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you use those words
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as the second last part of your proof then it sould be 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obvious that we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to look at the other parts in order to find an 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> error in the proof.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is slightly more than zero supporting reasoning yet 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mere gibberish
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when construed as any rebuttal to this:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Those who disagree with you about whether something is 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "gibberish" may
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think that you are stupid. You probably don't want them to 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think so,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regardless whether thinking so would be right or wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *This unequivocally proves the behavior of DD correctly 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated by HH*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://liarparadox.org/DD_correctly_simulated_by_HH_is_Proven.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why would anyone construe my words as any rebuttal to 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that? That pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merely claims that a partucuar author (a C program) proves 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two particular
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claims, the second of which is badly formed (because of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> verbs it is hard to parse and consequently hard to be sure 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apparent meaning or apparent lack of meaning is what is 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intended).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *I will dumb it down for you some more*
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Did you knwo that "dumb it down" does not mean 'change the 
>>>>>>>>>>>> topic'?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH
>>>>>>>>>>>>> such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> _DD()
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001e12] 55         push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001e13] 8bec       mov  ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001e15] 51         push ecx
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001e16] 8b4508     mov  eax,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001e19] 50         push eax      ; push DD
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001e1a] 8b4d08     mov  ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001e1d] 51         push ecx      ; push DD
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001e1e] e85ff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *That meets this criteria*
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It doesn't if you mean the criteria implied by the subject 
>>>>>>>>>>>> line.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes it does mean that when we ourselves detect the repeating
>>>>>>>>>>> state of DD correctly simulated by HH does meet the first part
>>>>>>>>>>> of the following criteria:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What does your "first part" mean? There is more than one way to
>>>>>>>>>> partition the criteria.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     If simulating halt decider HH correctly simulates its input DD
>>>>>>>>>     until HH correctly determines that its simulated DD would 
>>>>>>>>> never
>>>>>>>>>     stop running unless aborted then
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That is all of the criteria, so should not be called "first part".
>>>>>>>> Atually Sipser only agreed about H and D, not about HH and DD but
>>>>>>>> that does not make any difference for the above.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Professor Sipser knew full well that H and D are mere
>>>>>>> placeholders for simulating halt decider H with arbitrary input D.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, as nothing more is specified in the agreed text. But his 
>>>>>> expressed
>>>>>> agreement does not extend to any substition of those placeholders.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It allows substitution of any simulating halt decider for H
>>>>> and any finite string input for D. If you are going to lie
>>>>> about this I am going to quit looking at what you say.
>>>>>
>>>>> <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>
>>>>
>>>> And you can only use that with the definiton Professor Sipser has 
>>>> for "Correct Simulation" which you don't do, 
>>>
>>> I prove that my simulation is correct and your "rebuttal"
>>> is refusal to look at this proof.
>>
>> Nope, Not by the definition that Professor Sipser uses.
>>
>> You don't get to change his meaning. PERIOD.
>>
>>>
>> Nope, > This makes your claim that my simulation is incorrect
>>> defamation and not any actual rebuttal.
>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========