Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant?
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2024 07:26:57 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 142
Message-ID: <v60rmh$1kr1q$4@dont-email.me>
References: <v5vkun$1b0k9$1@dont-email.me> <v5vmen$1oanb$9@i2pn2.org>
<v5vng3$1f17p$1@dont-email.me> <v5vp28$1oana$5@i2pn2.org>
<v5vq26$1fg22$1@dont-email.me> <v5vr16$1oana$9@i2pn2.org>
<v5vsa2$1fqfa$1@dont-email.me>
<ae84c00b2eda6f7bc22188e852ce6e551d8b16aa@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2024 14:26:57 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="be8a74d1ebb79f081dc40b5f7175e5aa";
logging-data="1731642"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18JCtmx7qDBqrMvID+FCqM0"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:+LP9Arn9NwCiu7YjWM5pI+rlrBU=
In-Reply-To: <ae84c00b2eda6f7bc22188e852ce6e551d8b16aa@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6659
On 7/2/2024 6:30 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 7/1/24 11:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/1/2024 10:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 7/1/24 10:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 7/1/2024 9:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 7/1/24 10:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/1/2024 8:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/1/24 9:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> typedef void (*ptr)();
>>>>>>>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> void Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> void Infinite_Recursion()
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>> Infinite_Recursion();
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>> HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>> HHH(Infinite_Loop);
>>>>>>>> HHH(Infinite_Recursion);
>>>>>>>> HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Every C programmer that knows what an x86 emulator is knows
>>>>>>>> that when HHH emulates the machine language of Infinite_Loop,
>>>>>>>> Infinite_Recursion, and DDD that it must abort these emulations
>>>>>>>> so that itself can terminate normally.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Right.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then why do you contradict yourself below? Did you forget to lie?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because I didn't contradict my self or lie, as the programs are
>>>>> different.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> See what you agreed to by re-reading the words that
>>>> you agreed to and you will see that you forgot to lie
>>>> this time.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Your streaching. You know what I mean, and if you want to get
>>> finicky, I will pull out the doxens of LIES that you have implicitly
>>> admitted to by not providing the references you claimed to have.
>>>
>>> Yes, HHH must abort its emulation to return, but that doesn't mean
>>> that THIS input in non-halting.
>>
>> *I tricked you into forgetting to lie so you told the truth*
>
> No, your tricked your self into admitting your logic needs to use
> trickery, and fell into your own trap.
>
> Yes, you need to choose an HHH that aborts the DDD that is made from it
> to have an HHH that returns,
This <is> the problem that I am willing to discuss.
I am unwilling to discuss any other problem.
This does meet the Sipser approved criteria.
<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>
I don't care that you contradict yourself later on, that it
your problem and not mine.
> but this does not meen that htis HHH NEEDS
> to abort its emulation of its input, but does. The difference is that
> for the first question, we still have free reign to choose the decider,
> and the input hasn't been actually created, just the template for the
> input (since to have behavior, it needs to be a specific program).
>
> The second quesition, the decider and the input have been fixed, so when
> we hypothosize about need, and look at an alternate decider, the input,
> having been fixed, doesn't change. Thus, the full simulation that "needs
> to" refers to sees the decider emulate the input, and INCORRECT decide
> to abort and return to its caller which hahalts, thus showing no NEED to
> abort in the decider.
>
>>
>> <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>
>
> But here "Correct Simulation" means a simulation that exactly reproduces
> the behavior of directly running the program represented by the input,
> which means on the NEVER aborts its simulation.
>
> Since your H does neither that type of simulation, nor correctly predict
> what that type of simulation would do, you can't correctly use the
> second paragraph.
>
> Then you have that you input doesn't actually represent a full program,
> so you just start with an error, but one we can correct since we know
> the decider that you intend to pair it with.
>
>>
>> As Ben has already agreed to criteria has been met.
>
> Nope, again, putting false words into other mouths.
>
>>>
>>> I could point out that it is IMPOSSIBLE for you HHH to actually
>>> correctly do the emulation you claim on the input provided (since
>>> there is no code provded to emulate the call HHH) so your question is
>>> just invalid.
>>
>> *You already know that I already provided this code*
>> https://liarparadox.org/HHH(DDD)_Full_Trace.pdf
>>
>
> Which isn't the trace described, and Isn't even the full code as there
> ard empty stubs that seem to be replaced.
>
> So, you just continue ti LIE.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer