| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<1013tct$2h8vj$2@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: 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: Tue, 27 May 2025 10:33:33 +0200 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 160 Message-ID: <1013tct$2h8vj$2@dont-email.me> References: <m99YP.725664$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> <1012c71$24dfd$2@dont-email.me> <1012d2k$24p17$3@dont-email.me> <1012dru$24dfd$6@dont-email.me> <1012ecu$25ce3$1@dont-email.me> <1012fh9$24dfe$9@dont-email.me> <1012gab$25ej1$3@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 27 May 2025 10:33:33 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9282f3f19e7c18147954a51f8fc45d70"; logging-data="2663411"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/DpqyWGj4fItI40VFi/tGy" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:Z6B0yJ6ziARbFAV/6AO+Laf4l5Q= Content-Language: nl, en-GB In-Reply-To: <1012gab$25ej1$3@dont-email.me> Op 26.mei.2025 om 21:44 schreef olcott: > On 5/26/2025 2:30 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >> Op 26.mei.2025 om 21:11 schreef olcott: >>> On 5/26/2025 2:02 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>> Op 26.mei.2025 om 20:48 schreef olcott: >>>>> On 5/26/2025 1:34 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> The outermost HHH always sees one whole recursive emulation >>>>> more than the next inner one. >>>> >>>> Only if you change the input with the simulator. >>>> Every simulator that tries to simulate itself, fails. >>> >>> My code proves otherwise. >>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c >>> >> Your code proves exactly my point. That Halt7.c is part of the input >> and specifies an abort, so the program specified by the input halts. >> But HHH fails to see that. It does not even start to simulate itself, >> but aborts at that point. So, it is in no way a proof that your >> simulator is able to simulate itself, let alone to simulate itself >> correctly. > > It is a verified fact that HHH does simulate itself simulating DDD. > If you are too incompetent to understand that this does not count > as a rebuttal. > It seems you do not understand what 'simulate' means. HHH does not simulate itself, but aborts the simulation at the point where the simulation of itself should start. It does not simulate itself, but only makes some false assumptions about itself, in particular it assumes that 'itself' does not halt. That you do not understand your own code is in no way a rebuttal for my claim that no simulator is able to simulate itself up to the end.