Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Bad faith and dishonesty
Date: Mon, 26 May 2025 11:21:45 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 123
Message-ID: <10124ep$22da5$15@dont-email.me>
References: <m99YP.725664$B6tf.610565@fx02.ams4>
 <100uct4$184ak$1@dont-email.me> <100v9ta$1d5lg$7@dont-email.me>
 <100ve61$1e53o$2@dont-email.me> <100vh47$1f7a8$1@dont-email.me>
 <100via6$1lno$1@news.muc.de> <100vo5n$1go1g$1@dont-email.me>
 <100vomn$1fqmu$1@dont-email.me> <100vpkf$1h90o$1@dont-email.me>
 <100vrlj$1hntd$1@dont-email.me> <100vrnm$1hnk3$2@dont-email.me>
 <100vs81$os9$1@news.muc.de> <100vskl$1hu7f$1@dont-email.me>
 <100vt68$1hntd$3@dont-email.me> <100vukd$1i93o$1@dont-email.me>
 <1010hv5$1m2v4$1@dont-email.me> <1010j9h$1m8mk$1@dont-email.me>
 <10119hn$1thsm$2@dont-email.me> <101215o$22da5$3@dont-email.me>
 <10123r5$22udp$5@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 18:21:46 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="64fd189e500b414701d6509a3265afae";
	logging-data="2176325"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19k5cg6VkzRa8/zAA8Y2wLw"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:iaic1zZpE0s57i3S+kIpUBKGR20=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250525-10, 5/25/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <10123r5$22udp$5@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean

On 5/26/2025 11:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 26.mei.2025 om 17:25 schreef olcott:
>> On 5/26/2025 3:42 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 26.mei.2025 om 04:22 schreef olcott:
>>>> On 5/25/2025 9:00 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>> On 25/05/2025 21:30, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/25/2025 3:05 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/25/2025 3:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> *Mike understood this perfectly*
>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2025 7:36 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>> --------- Sipser quote -----
>>>>>>>>     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.
>>>>>>>> ----------------------------
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> we can easily interpret that as saying exactly what I said a SHD
>>>>>>>> does above.  It tells PO that in the tight loop example, H 
>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>> simulates as far as [A], at which point it correctly determines 
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> "its simulated input would never stop running unless aborted", so
>>>>>>>> it can decide "non-halting".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All correct and natural, and no deliberately
>>>>>>>> false premises to mislead PO.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2025 7:36 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>> https://al.howardknight.net/? 
>>>>>>>> STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3C1003cu5%242p3g1%241%40dont-email.me%3E 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And you dishonestly left out the part that immediately follows 
>>>>>>> where he states that you are wrong:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *VERFIED FACT*
>>>>>> Mike Terry Proves ---
>>>>>> How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met
>>>>>
>>>>> Just for the record:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1)  I didn't offer any proofs of /anything/
>>>>>
>>>>> -  I did explain how Sipser's words can be naturally interpreted as 
>>>>> explaining
>>>>>     how a simulating halt decider can operate.  [That is not a proof.]
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It seems like proof to me.
>>>> When-so-ever anyone provides complete and correct reasoning
>>>> showing how an expression of language is true, this is a proof.
>>>>
>>>>> -  I also explained why that explanation *doesn't* apply to your 
>>>>> HHH/ DDD pair
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes you did do this.
>>>>
>>>> *On 5/14/2025 7:36 PM, Mike Terry wrote*
>>>> the simulated input (DD) /does/ stop running if simulated
>>>> far enough, but HHH simply /doesn't/ go far enough
>>>>
>>>> _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]
>>>>
>>>> I use the simpler DDD because everyone here gets
>>>> completely confused even by this simple example.
>>>>
>>>> How many recursive emulations does HHH have to
>>>> wait before its emulated DDD magically halts
>>>> on its own without ever needing to be aborted?
>>>>
>>>> Once you and I work through this one point I may
>>>> finally have complete closure.
>>> Again you make the same mistake by not only changing the decider, but 
>>> also the input.
>>> We are discussing the input where DDD calls a HHH that aborts after 
>>> one cycle.
>>
>> *No we are not. We are discussing this*
>>
>> *On 5/14/2025 7:36 PM, Mike Terry wrote*
>> the simulated input (DD) /does/ stop running if simulated
>> far enough, but HHH simply /doesn't/ go far enough
>>
> And that is the bug in HHH. It does not go far enough.

No Mike is just wrong.

_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?

> When we say that it needs to go further, you suddenly changes the input, 
> so that it is still not far enough.
> 


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