Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_Analysis_of_Flibble=E2=80=99s_Latest=3A_Detecting_v?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?s=2E_Simulating_Infinite_Recursion_ZFC?=
Date: Sat, 24 May 2025 19:21:21 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 139
Message-ID: <100tnq1$10gpu$1@dont-email.me>
References: <Ms4XP.801347$BFJ.668081@fx13.ams4>
 <100l3jh$2v0e9$1@dont-email.me> <100l5c8$2ul3j$2@dont-email.me>
 <100l75g$2vpq3$1@dont-email.me> <100l887$2ul3i$2@dont-email.me>
 <100l9gh$30aak$1@dont-email.me> <100lc4o$30pgm$1@dont-email.me>
 <100ld1u$312c9$1@dont-email.me> <100lg4g$31jt3$1@dont-email.me>
 <100lkdv$32ib3$1@dont-email.me> <100lmif$32v06$1@dont-email.me>
 <100lmp3$32ven$1@dont-email.me> <100m319$38k55$2@dont-email.me>
 <87jz69xlpx.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <100mder$39slu$2@dont-email.me>
 <100oipb$3oge1$1@dont-email.me> <87a573xz0s.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <875xhrtbpr.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <87y0umx63u.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <871pseu9os.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <100ssg5$qc3d$1@dont-email.me>
 <87ldqlsn5j.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <100tjq5$vqsc$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 25 May 2025 02:21:30 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="800f53e41d24e03ecbdf95207701d21d";
	logging-data="1065790"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19wtfAJYU8Xy3mDa1bITgPG"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:fmx2zfRFP/DVdrUH/GZKQpwq4Zs=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <100tjq5$vqsc$1@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250524-4, 5/24/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US

On 5/24/2025 6:13 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 24/05/2025 22:40, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:
>>> On 24/05/2025 01:36, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>> Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> writes:
>>>>> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>> Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> writes:
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>> And the big picture is that this can be done because false is the
>>>>>>> correct halting decision for some halting computations.  He has said
>>>>>>> this explicitly (as I have posted before) but he has also 
>>>>>>> explained it
>>>>>>> in words:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> | When-so-ever a halt decider correctly determines that its input 
>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>> | never halt unless forced to halt by this halt decider this halt
>>>>>>> | decider has made a correct not-halting determination.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hmm.  I don't read that the way you do.  Did I miss something?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It assumes that the input is a non-halting computation ("its input
>>>>>> would never halt") and asserts that, in certain circumstances,
>>>>>> his mythical halt decider correctly determines that the input
>>>>>> is non-halting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When his mythical halt decider correctly determines that its input
>>>>>> doesn't halt, it has made a correct non-halting determination.
>>>>>> It's just a tautology.
>>>>>
>>>>> It would be a tautology but for the "unless..." part.  It does not 
>>>>> make
>>>>> the determination that it does not halt.  It determines that it would
>>>>> not halt were it not for the fact that the decider (a simulation) in
>>>>> fact halts it.
>>>> Right, so the computation itself is non-halting.
>>>
>>> No no no, it halts!
>>
>> What halts?
>>
>>>                       (Assuming we're discussing the computation DD() 
>>> with PO's code.)
>>
>> No, I'm not going to assume that.  *All* I'm talking about is olcott's
>> statement:
>>
>>>>>>> | When-so-ever a halt decider correctly determines that its input 
>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>> | never halt unless forced to halt by this halt decider this halt
>>>>>>> | decider has made a correct not-halting determination.
>>
>> I'm not trying to make it consistent with anything else olcott has
>> written.  DD() is irrelevant to what I'm talking about.
>>
>> As I wrote before, let H be the "halt decider" and let I be its input
>> (which represents a computation).  I by itself does not halt.
>> I-simulated-by-H may halt if H forces it to halt.
>>
>> H might be a simulator, or it may just monitor the execution of I with
>> the ability to halt it.  H is not a pure simulator; it does not always
>> fully simulate the execution of I.
>>
>> H is given the task of determining whether I is a halting computation or
>> not (a task that is not possible in all cases, but is certainly possible
>> in some cases).
> 
> Fair enough.
> 
> Your interpretation of Olcott's statement is indeed a tautology.  That 
> tautology is not very interesting, and most people would interpret the 
> statement in the same as you (and me).
> 
> PO's interpretation of the statement is wrong, but that doesn't interest 
> you - he said the words and the words are correct in some absolute sense 
> even if PO does not understand that sense, and is thinking of something 
> different.  PO made a true statement!
> 
> Interestingly, you're doing what PO does, sort of - he says the words 
> mean what /he/ says they mean, and that meaning justifies one of his 
> false claims.  He supports this claim by saying Sipser agreed with the 
> words, even though it's clear Sipser's agreement was with a different 
> interpretation of those words.
> 
> <PO speaking>
> But hey, Sipser "agreed with those words"!  Sipser just didn't 
> appreciate the consequence of their true meaning [aka PO's 
> interpretation].  :)
> </PO speaking>
> 
> [...]
>>
>>> So sure, you can say the statement is a tautology, but PO made that
>>> statement and his interpretation of what it means is far from your
>>> tautology.
>>
>> Sure, he does that.
>>
>> My overall point, I suppose, is that if people are going to argue with
>> olcott, if he happens to make a true statement it's not helpful to argue
>> that its false.
> 
> I'm all for that - I'd go further to say that I champion that point of 
> view.  But if PO makes a statement which he intends to mean XXX and XXX 
> is false, has he made a true statement just because your interpretation 
> of the same statement is YYY, different from XXX, and YYY happens to be 
> true?
> 
> In any case, I don't think anyone would disagree with your 
> interpretation of the statement being a tautology...  Certainly not me.  
> (I think that's all that's to be said on this.)
> 
> 
> Mike.
> 

_DDD()
[00002192] 55             push ebp
[00002193] 8bec           mov ebp,esp
[00002195] 6892210000     push 00002192
[0000219a] e833f4ffff     call 000015d2  // call HHH
[0000219f] 83c404         add esp,+04
[000021a2] 5d             pop ebp
[000021a3] c3             ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [000021a3]

Since it is an easily verified fact that DDD emulated
by HHH according to the rules of the x86 language
would never stop running unless aborted by HHH:

I can't imagine how anyone disagreeing with this
is not a damned liar. If anyone disagrees knowing
that they simply don't understand these things
they too are also damned liars.


-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer