Path: ...!news.misty.com!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: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant?
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2024 18:44:31 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <0240b761838a429e86cfcf42e3c7a40edc705cfd@i2pn2.org>
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>
 <v60rmh$1kr1q$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2024 22:44:31 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1952764"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v60rmh$1kr1q$4@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 7285
Lines: 157

On 7/2/24 8:26 AM, olcott wrote:
> 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.

But where is your diagonization proof?

> 
> <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>

And "Correct Simulation" means to Professor Sipser a simulation that 
exactly reproduces the behavior of the machine the input represents, 
which means a simulation that is NEVER stoped until it reaches a final 
state.

Your H doesn't do that sort of simulation, or CORRECTLY predicts that 
behavior of that sort of simulation of this exact input, so it never got 
the needed evidence to do the second paragraph.

> 
> I don't care that you contradict yourself later on, that it
> your problem and not mine.

But your claim that you meet the requirements is just a lie.

Like your claim you have a diagonalization proof that disproves Godel.

> 
>> 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.
>