Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2024 09:51:50 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v4k69m$2218$4@i2pn2.org>
References: <v428vv$2no74$2@dont-email.me> <v43ib7$38hnd$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4628o$6ero$1@dont-email.me> <v468qt$7uvj$1@dont-email.me>
 <v47joj$je45$1@dont-email.me> <v47kt3$jhs8$1@dont-email.me>
 <v47l92$je45$2@dont-email.me> <v48tt4$tqad$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4a07r$157ic$1@dont-email.me> <v4beis$1h0p6$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4cceu$1mi5i$2@dont-email.me> <v4corm$1p0h0$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4cp5s$1pe0q$1@dont-email.me> <v4cs0b$1p0h1$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4csdq$1q0a8$1@dont-email.me> <v4ctuq$1p0h1$2@dont-email.me>
 <v4cuc6$1qedu$1@dont-email.me> <v4e9qm$25ks0$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4epji$28g4v$2@dont-email.me> <v4fhj3$2dce5$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4fi0m$2dvk4$1@dont-email.me> <v4h4ag$2q9hc$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4he7s$2sdqr$4@dont-email.me> <v4i41a$30e5b$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4i52u$30usa$1@dont-email.me> <v4i7ne$311i2$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4ia6l$31vjj$1@dont-email.me> <v4jlds$3cq2s$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4k0fc$3f0hc$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2024 13:51:50 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="67624"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v4k0fc$3f0hc$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 6031
Lines: 98

On 6/15/24 8:12 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/15/2024 4:03 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 14.jun.2024 om 22:46 schreef olcott:
>>> On 6/14/2024 3:03 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 14.jun.2024 om 21:18 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 6/14/2024 2:00 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 14.jun.2024 om 14:49 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>> I ran the actual code to verify the facts.
>>>>>>> HH1(DD,DD) does not have a pathological relationship to its input
>>>>>>> thus this input terminates normally.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your terminology is confusing. What you call a "pathological 
>>>>>> relationship" is that H must simulate itself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *CONVENTIONAL TERMINOLOGY*
>>>>> For any program H that might determine whether programs halt, a
>>>>> "pathological" program D, called with some input, can pass its own
>>>>> source and its input to H and then specifically do the opposite of 
>>>>> what
>>>>> H predicts D will do. No H can exist that handles this case.
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>>>>
>>>> The problem is that your simulator does not even reach the 
>>>> "pathological" part of D. 
>>>
>>> That is not the problem that is the criterion measure of a solution.
>>
>> You are using the wrong criterion, because this wrong criterion also 
>> also applies to other programs, without a "pathological" part.
>>
>>         int main()
>>         {
>>           return H(main, 0);
>>         }
>>
>> where you proved that H reports a false negative.
>>
>> So, your criterion has no relation with "pathological" programs.
>>
> 
> This criteria works correctly for ALL input, including pathological
> main(). Maybe if you were a PhD computer science professor you would
> understand this.
> 
> <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 words10/13/2022>
> 
> 

But since Professor Sipser mens by "A correct simulaiton: a simulation 
that actually reflects the behavior of the direct execution of the 
input, which means a simulation that NEVER aborts its operation until it 
reaches a final state, and H doesn't show that, or correctly that that 
sort of simulation of *THIS* input wouldn't halt (since D(D) Halts since 
H(D,D) returns 0) H can't use the first paragraph (whose conditions are 
not satisfied) to do the operations of the second, which it does anyway, 
and thus makes itself wrong.

And shows you to be an ignorant liar.

> 
>>>
>>> _D()
>>> [00000cfc](01) 55          push ebp
>>> [00000cfd](02) 8bec        mov ebp,esp
>>> [00000cff](03) 8b4508      mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>> [00000d02](01) 50          push eax       ; push D
>>> [00000d03](03) 8b4d08      mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>> [00000d06](01) 51          push ecx       ; push D
>>> [00000d07](05) e800feffff  call 00000b0c  ; call H
>>> [00000d0c](03) 83c408      add esp,+08
>>> [00000d0f](02) 85c0        test eax,eax
>>> [00000d11](02) 7404        jz 00000d17
>>> [00000d13](02) 33c0        xor eax,eax
>>> [00000d15](02) eb05        jmp 00000d1c
>>> [00000d17](05) b801000000  mov eax,00000001
>>> [00000d1c](01) 5d          pop ebp
>>> [00000d1d](01) c3          ret
>>> Size in bytes:(0034) [00000d1d]
>>
>> Nice try, but completely beside the point.
>> Are you really unable to see this has no relation with a 
>> "pathological" program that contradicts the result of H?
>>
>> The only thing you have done so far is proving that no H exists that 
>> correctly simulates itself up to its final state and therefore it is 
>> unable to see the full behaviour of its input, because it always 
>> prematurely aborts the simulation one cycle too early.
>>
>> If you don't understand such simple facts, discussion makes no sense.
>