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 13:15:46 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 191
Message-ID: <1012b4i$24k39$1@dont-email.me>
References: <Ms4XP.801347$BFJ.668081@fx13.ams4>
 <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> <10122tl$22da5$8@dont-email.me>
 <1012ahp$24dfe$3@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 20:15:47 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="64fd189e500b414701d6509a3265afae";
	logging-data="2248809"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18hZRKDgattYuBoEExAgRpP"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:3gJEaskjgd/k5WsfKCQrVSazWP8=
In-Reply-To: <1012ahp$24dfe$3@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250525-10, 5/25/2025), Outbound message

On 5/26/2025 1:05 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 26.mei.2025 om 17:55 schreef olcott:
>> 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
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========