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 20:01:00 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 92
Message-ID: <100tq4c$110ge$1@dont-email.me>
References: <Ms4XP.801347$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$1@dont-email.me> <87a573xz0s.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <875xhrtbpr.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <100r2mb$b2b1$1@dont-email.me>
 <87msb2x39x.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <87tt5aslwo.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <87bjrhwlqr.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 25 May 2025 03:01:01 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="800f53e41d24e03ecbdf95207701d21d";
	logging-data="1081870"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+WkoXu2XOYVt2pAZneXH8H"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:0umKeiYFHdvytnptJnArn00WUUc=
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250524-4, 5/24/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <87bjrhwlqr.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean

On 5/24/2025 7:57 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> writes:
>>> Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:
>>>> On 23/05/2025 19:37, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>>> Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> writes:
>>>>>> Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> 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.
>>>>
>>>> You're reading it the way most people would, and in the way I said Sipser
>>>> would be interpreting the oft-quoted "Sipser quote".  I don't think you've
>>>> missed anything particularly.
>>>
>>> Maybe it makes less sense out of the context it was posted in.  This was
>>> when he was being less obtuse.  The computation in question only halts
>>> because it is halted by the decider on which it is built.  It is a
>>> halting computation, but according to PO it can reported as not halting
>>> because of what would happen if it were not halted by the decider from
>>> which it is derived.
>>
>> I think you're misreading it (or, if you prefer, I have yet to be
>> convinced that I'm misreading it).
> 
> OK.  This sub thread is an excellent example of how cranks keep it all
> going without shining any light on what's going on.
> 
> If the remark is correct, then it misrepresents PO's intended meaning
> because he is discussing one of the cases where false is the correct
> result for a halting computation.  If the remark does represent his
> intended meaning then it is unclear because you think it is simply a
> tautology.
> 
> That makes it a bad quote for me to have pulled out.  I should have
> stuck with this exchange:
> 
> Me: Here's the key question: do you still assert that H(P,P) == false is
>      the "correct" answer even though P(P) halts?
> 
> PO: Yes that is the correct answer even though P(P) halts.
> 
> Everything that followed this was, as far as I can tell, an attempt be
> less clear.  But as Richard Heathfield has pointed out, we should always
> attempt to address the strongest and clearest-made point that is
> offered.  (I think this advice was originally from Daniel Dennet.)
> 
> I see you have offered a very detailed interpretation of what you think
> the words used by PO mean.  Please forgive me for not going into it in
> any more detail.  I'll just take that to mean PO was unclear and should
> not have quoted his ambiguous words.  When PO is clear, he is very
> explicitly wrong, and that's the main point that keeps getting lost.
> 

_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