Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2024 08:53:20 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 154 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: Sun, 09 Jun 2024 15:53:21 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f8e472f6a5ded880f3c8d2cedf42e75a"; logging-data="3713911"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/2/hILlp7csRIm0CNUgtPF" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:Qh3UBUyYEnB8hUqWs4/Bi+XIYXg= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 8260 On 6/9/2024 3:20 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2024-06-08 12:52:36 +0000, olcott said: > >> 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. > > Sipser clearly said that his agreement does not extend to any > substitutions. > Those I my verbatim words that he agreed with and I said no such thing. 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. For all X > 5 | X > 3 is not restricted to 8 -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer