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: Mon, 26 May 2025 10:55:32 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 164
Message-ID: <10122tl$22da5$8@dont-email.me>
References: <Ms4XP.801347$BFJ.668081@fx13.ams4>
 <100ktr7$2reaa$1@dont-email.me> <100l09v$2tae8$5@dont-email.me>
 <100l1ov$2ul3j$1@dont-email.me> <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$1@dont-email.me> <87msb2x39x.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <100rbkf$g939$1@dont-email.me> <87h619wmfk.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <100tpm0$10tha$1@dont-email.me> <100tqcd$110ge$3@dont-email.me>
 <100upif$1ahac$1@dont-email.me> <100v8ve$1d5lg$3@dont-email.me>
 <1011apa$1u6vi$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 26 May 2025 17:55:33 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="64fd189e500b414701d6509a3265afae";
	logging-data="2176325"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19ML0eSKME/G8omGRrX9Bd2"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:tz3n0ql/vEvbuFz5Bl2tNiB9rik=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <1011apa$1u6vi$1@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250525-10, 5/25/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean

On 5/26/2025 4:03 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2025-05-25 14:20:30 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 5/25/2025 4:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2025-05-25 01:05:17 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 5/24/2025 7:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/24/2025 7:42 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>> Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 24/05/2025 01:26, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "The computation in question only halts because it is halted by the
>>>>>>> decider on which it is built."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is presumably you speaking in PO's voice, but my first reading
>>>>>>> was as you saying it!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It was paraphrase.  He has evolved (deliberately) from being very 
>>>>>> clear:
>>>>>> false is correct for some halting computations; the set of halting
>>>>>> computation is expanded to include some others; right though to the
>>>>>> wording that he managed to trick Sipser with.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The intermediate stages involved turns of phrase like "some 
>>>>>> computations
>>>>>> only halt because the simulator halts them" and "it would not halt if
>>>>>> line 15 were commented out" and so on.  But the basic plan has 
>>>>>> been the
>>>>>> same for years: some halting computations can be classed as non- 
>>>>>> halting
>>>>>> because they halt for a reason he considers special -- a closely 
>>>>>> related
>>>>>> but different computation would not halt.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If PO were a normal person, the key would be to go back and forth 
>>>>>> getting
>>>>>> answers to direct questions that would illuminate what he thinks.  
>>>>>> But
>>>>>> cranks always duck and dive when asked direct questions because they
>>>>>> know that must avoid being clear.  I have dozens of notes of direct
>>>>>> questions being evaded, time and time again.  The only game (for 
>>>>>> me) is
>>>>>> to try to get a crank to actually say what they mean as clearly as
>>>>>> possible.  That is, after all, what a proper exchange of view 
>>>>>> should be
>>>>>> based on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> As ever, pointing it out to PO, however explicitly and clearly, 
>>>>>>> has no
>>>>>>> effect on what PO believes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right, but it is possible to try to get as clear and concise an
>>>>>> expression of what he believes.  There's no point in trying to change
>>>>>> his mind, but his nonsense can then be laid bare for all to see.  At
>>>>>> that point, I would want to just repeat it back (every time he posts)
>>>>>> with an brief explanation that it's wrong rather than try to 
>>>>>> educate PO.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _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.
>>>>
>>>> int main()
>>>> {
>>>>    DDD();  // No matter what the f-ck its caller does
>>>> }         // The finite string input to the HHH(DDD)
>>>>            // that DDD calls SPECIFIES a non-halting
>>>>            // sequence of configurations.
>>>
>>> You  forgot one exception: if HHH (the one that DDD calls) is a decider
>>> then DDD specifies a halting sequence of configurations.
>>
>> It is a tautology that any simulated input finite
>> string that must be aborted to prevent its infinite
>> simulation does specify a non-halting sequence.
> 
> Irrelevant 

This is the most important aspect of simulating halt deciders.
When-so-ever any simulated input must be aborted to prevent its
own infinite simulation
THEN THIS INPUT IS CORRECTLY REJECTED AS NON-HALTING

_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]

How many recursive emulations does HHH have to
wait before its emulated DDD magically halts
on its own without ever needing to be aborted?


-- 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========