Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic Subject: Re: Sequence of sequence, selection and iteration matters --- Ben proves that he agrees to my meanings Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2024 07:29:15 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <5d0636827eab52e995bbbe6398de167d9c3dbf75@i2pn2.org> References: <80ebfd233bf599468126ddf048190bd0799605bd@i2pn2.org> <77a477b609ed9fc2184aded539ebd054dfec51de@i2pn2.org> <69c20ccdb6a56df2351095d5e74338bb3bc01dab@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2024 11:29:15 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="2678676"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 8992 Lines: 172 On 7/9/24 12:22 AM, olcott wrote: > On 7/8/2024 9:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 7/8/24 10:42 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/8/2024 9:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 7/8/24 10:01 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 7/8/2024 8:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 7/8/24 9:37 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/8/2024 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/8/24 8:47 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 7/8/2024 7:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 7/8/24 8:21 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 7/8/2024 6:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/8/24 7:45 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/8/2024 6:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/8/24 9:04 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/8/2024 2:22 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-07-07 14:16:10 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _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] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sufficient knowledge of the x86 language conclusively >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the call from DDD correctly emulated by HHH to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH(DDD) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly return for any pure function HHH. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Suffifcient knowledge of the x86 language makes obvious >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDD returns if and only if HHH returns. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is insufficient knowledge. Sufficient knowledge >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDD correctly simulated by HHH meets this criteria. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, YOU have the insufficent knowledge, since you don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand that the x86 language says programs are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> deterministic, and their behavior is fully establish when >>>>>>>>>>>>>> they are written, and running or simulating them is only a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> way to observe that behavior, and the only CORRECT >>>>>>>>>>>>>> observation of all the behavior, so letting that operation >>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach its final state. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 10/13/2022> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Which you H doesn't meet, since the definition of "Correct >>>>>>>>>>>> Simulation" here (as for most people) is a simulation that >>>>>>>>>>>> exactly reproduces the behavior of the full program the >>>>>>>>>>>> input represents, which means a simulaiton that doesn't abort. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Since your H doesn't do that, or correctly determine what >>>>>>>>>>>> one of those would do (since it would halt since you H >>>>>>>>>>>> returns 0) so you CAN'T correctly predict that which doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>> happen. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> *Ben agrees that the "if" statement has been met* >>>>>>>>>>>>> *Ben agrees that the "if" statement has been met* >>>>>>>>>>>>> *Ben agrees that the "if" statement has been met* >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> No, he agress that your H, which is NOT a Halt Decider, is >>>>>>>>>>>> correctly answering your non-halt-deciding question.  In >>>>>>>>>>>> other words, it is a correct POOP decide.r >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It is literally true that Ben agrees that the "if" statement >>>>>>>>>>> has been met. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Same words, but different meanings. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> SO, NO >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> He literally agrees with MY meanings that the "if" has >>>>>>>>> been fulfilled. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>>>  > I don't think that is the shell game.  PO really /has/ an H >>>>>>>>> (it's >>>>>>>>>  > trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines >>>>>>>>> that P(P) >>>>>>>>>  > *would* never stop running *unless* aborted. >>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>  > But H determines (correctly) that D would not halt if it >>>>>>>>> were not >>>>>>>>>  > halted.  That much is a truism. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes, Ben agrees that >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *That the verbatim words of the If statement are fulfilled* >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> In other words, you think changing meaning of words in a statement >>>>>> is valid logic, but it is actually one form of LIE. >>>>> >>>>> Ben agrees: >>>>> *That the verbatim words of the If statement are fulfilled* >>>>> >>>> >>>> But with difffent meaning of the words, so you LIE. >>> >>> Ben proved that agreed that my meanings of my words were >>> fulfilled by paraphrasing my words into his own words. >>> >>> On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>  > But H determines (correctly) that D would not halt if >>>  > it were not halted.  That much is a truism. >>> >>> Ben only disagreed that my meanings of my words entail >>> the second part. >> >> No, Ben agreed that with YOUR definiton of the words, which are >> diffferent than profressor Sipser, you can show that your POOP problem >> is correctly solved for P by H. >> >> You are INCORRECT about Professor Sipser;s meaning, and thus about >> Halting. >> >>> >>> Ben felt that HHH could say that it didn't need to >>> abort DDD because AFTER it does abort DDD it doesn't >>> need to abort DDD. >>> >>> SEQUENCE MATTERS !!! >>> SEQUENCE CANNOT BE CORRECTLY IGNORED !!! >>> >> >> TRUTH MATTERS. >> >> The problem is the thing we are talking about, the behavior of DDD >> isn't determined by the simulation HHH does of it, but what HHH does >> with its simulation. If HHH returns, then so does DDD, even if HHH >> doesn't see it. > > The behavior of DDD is determined by its machine code. > Right, which include the machine code of HHH which determines that DDD ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========