Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Bad faith and dishonesty
Date: Mon, 26 May 2025 20:34:06 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 125
Message-ID: <1012c71$24dfd$2@dont-email.me>
References: <m99YP.725664$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> <10124ep$22da5$15@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 20:34:09 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3d9741af3eeecd00f2e2fba301162a94";
	logging-data="2242029"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX199tdlA/lYzb2sIoUmIHiO5"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:xfFd96D3js/x2wAI4U4m01XeTas=
In-Reply-To: <10124ep$22da5$15@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: nl, en-GB
Bytes: 6652

Op 26.mei.2025 om 18:21 schreef olcott:
> 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?
> 


No, *you* are just wrong.
A correct simulation needs only one recursion more than the simulated 
HHH. The bug in HHH is, that it aborts one cycle too early.
If HHH aborts after one cycle, as in the source you published, that two 
cycles are enough, except when you change the input, but that is 
changing the subject.