Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon 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: References: <87h6eamkgf.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

<_gWdnbwuZPJP2sL7nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>

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: 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) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>> >>>> 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 ==========