Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Mike Terry Proves --- How the requirements that Professor Sipser
 agreed to are exactly met
Date: Fri, 23 May 2025 12:54:25 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 151
Message-ID: <100pk52$1tgj$2@dont-email.me>
References: <1005jsk$3akrk$1@dont-email.me> <1009n2d$b9ol$1@dont-email.me>
 <100ag73$g1r8$1@dont-email.me> <100c83u$tspg$1@dont-email.me>
 <100ctuc$121rs$1@dont-email.me> <100d5b7$13m1e$1@dont-email.me>
 <221167c1bbedbbda1934b12f6b2c72de2c3a1f78@i2pn2.org>
 <100dckr$1586e$1@dont-email.me>
 <c5c825970bebea6bd8bfde7077f7ffc5ba0c30f5@i2pn2.org>
 <100dedr$15dil$3@dont-email.me>
 <771e0f3f36c9914146f675bc9e2c1c0e7903c116@i2pn2.org>
 <100dfc8$15qbo$1@dont-email.me>
 <35c9fb020e868823c3e46c006d9ac4698eaf4f82@i2pn2.org>
 <100dl6g$16vdn$1@dont-email.me>
 <f02a2fb26f6e1dedd29638f9b42befaab4781f17@i2pn2.org>
 <100dst7$18epo$1@dont-email.me> <100f18f$1iree$1@dont-email.me>
 <100gvv6$22oen$2@dont-email.me> <100h9le$24iha$1@dont-email.me>
 <100i43k$292ko$2@dont-email.me> <100if5d$2bf5g$1@dont-email.me>
 <100j8tq$2gba4$1@dont-email.me> <100jcie$2kg97$1@dont-email.me>
 <0be93ee0ee1eec62bdfbfe002ac40b5bdd4736a5@i2pn2.org>
 <100jfsu$2l8jc$1@dont-email.me> <100laku$30b4k$6@dont-email.me>
 <100lat8$30aak$7@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 23 May 2025 12:54:27 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="63676ddd724a1d0d4fd2400ecdbb31f2";
	logging-data="62995"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19fKosCIJ5kViZ4A+ZeF+3z"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:5XD8aEO9FZg7SHGwOThGF8kgWOM=
Content-Language: nl, en-GB
In-Reply-To: <100lat8$30aak$7@dont-email.me>

Op 21.mei.2025 om 21:52 schreef olcott:
> On 5/21/2025 2:47 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 21.mei.2025 om 05:05 schreef olcott:
>>> On 5/20/2025 9:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/20/25 10:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/20/2025 8:06 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>> On 20/05/2025 18:46, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>> Op 20.mei.2025 om 16:37 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>> On 5/20/2025 2:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2025-05-20 04:20:54 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <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
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Do you understand that we are only evaluating whether
>>>>>>>>>> or not HHH/DDD meets this above criteria?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I do understand that the meaning of the behaviour is not mentioned
>>>>>>>>> in the creteria and is therefore irrelevant, an obvious 
>>>>>>>>> consequence
>>>>>>>>> of which is that your "WRONG!" above is false.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *H correctly simulates its input D until*
>>>>>>>> specifies that HHH must simulate DDD according
>>>>>>>> to the meaning of the rules of the x86 language.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The meaning of every step of the behavior is
>>>>>>>> precisely specified by the x86 language.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _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]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *H correctly simulates its input D*
>>>>>>>> 00002172 00002173 00002175 0000217a
>>>>>>>> H correctly simulates itself simulating DDD
>>>>>>>> 00002172 00002173 00002175 0000217a
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *until H correctly determines that its simulated D*
>>>>>>>> *would never stop running unless aborted*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is a wild guess of HHH, not a correct determination. When it 
>>>>>>> sees the call to HHH and we know that HHH halts, we know that 
>>>>>>> there is only a finite recursion, so the 'would never stop 
>>>>>>> running' exists only in your dreams.
>>>>>>> The input is a finite string that includes the code of Halt7.c, 
>>>>>>> which specifies that the simulation will abort. So, HHH is wrong 
>>>>>>> when it assumes that an abort is needed for this input to prevent 
>>>>>>> a never stop running.
>>>>>>> Face the facts, not your dreams. Try a real argument, instead a 
>>>>>>> repetition of your dream. Try to get out of rebuttal mode.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> H sees DDD call the same function with the same
>>>>>>>> parameter and there are no conditional branch
>>>>>>>> instructions from the beginning of DDD to calling
>>>>>>>> HHH(DDD) again. This repeating pattern proves
>>>>>>>> non-termination.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> HHH does not even see a full cycle, so it cannot know that there 
>>>>>>> are no conditional branches in the cycle. You can view a full 
>>>>>>> cycle in different ways:
>>>>>>> 1) from the first start of DDD up to the second start of DDD. The 
>>>>>>> second beginning of DDD is reached after many steps of the 
>>>>>>> simulation, which contains a lot of conditional branching 
>>>>>>> instruction.
>>>>>>> 2) From the first start of HHH up to the second start of HHH. In 
>>>>>>> this cycle there are also many conditional branch instructions 
>>>>>>> within HHH.
>>>>>>> So, it is misleading to say that there are no conditional branch 
>>>>>>> instruction in the full cycle.
>>>>>>> That a small part of the cycle does not have conditional branch 
>>>>>>> instructions does not prove anything.
>>>>>>> Face the facts. Stop repeating your dreams. Come out of rebuttal 
>>>>>>> mode and try a serious honest dialogue.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, that all correct.  There are loads of conditional branch 
>>>>>> instructions performed by HHH as part of DDD.  This makes a 
>>>>>> nonsense of the implementation of PO's "infinite recursion" test.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But there is a worse nonsense here:  even if there were indeed no 
>>>>>> conditional branches between the matching call statements in the 
>>>>>> simulation, THAT STILL WOULD NOT BE ENOUGH TO GUARANTEE INFINITE 
>>>>>> RECURSION!
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You are assuming details of HHH that are not included
>>>>> in its specification. A DDD that is only simulated by
>>>>> HHH *is* infinite recursion.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But such an HHH isn't the needed decider, so not the DDD that we are 
>>>> looking at when we have a decider HHH.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry,
>>>>>
>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>> {
>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>    return;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> Any moron can see that DDD simulated by HHH cannot possibly halt.
>>>>> It does not matter how many steps of DDD are simulated by HHH.
>>>>> No DDD every reaches its own "return" statement final halt state.
>>>>
>>>> And any HHH that just simulates its input isn't a decider, and thus 
>>>> fails.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I have to go one step at a time or people
>>> get completely overwhelmed.
>>>
>>> So far everyone here including you right now made
>>> sure to dodge the above point, thus lack the mandatory
>>> prerequisites for moving on the to the next point.
>>>
>>> When an HHH emulates N steps of DDD,
>>> (no matter what the value of N is)
>>> DDD never halts and has the exact
>>> same behavior as HHH aborting DDD
>>> after N steps.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> N has a fixed value, 
> 
> No dip-shit N is specified to take on an value.
> It is like I say 5 > 3 and you say
> I doan beeve in nummers.
> 


Completely counter-factual and irrelevant. Apparently you don't have any 
real arguments against the fact that N steps are insufficient for a 
simulation that needs M steps. (M>N) Apparently you also do not 
understand what it means to change the input.