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: Wed, 28 May 2025 20:29:08 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 286
Message-ID: <1018d94$3h31e$1@dont-email.me>
References: <m99YP.725664$B6tf.610565@fx02.ams4>
 <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> <1013tct$2h8vj$2@dont-email.me>
 <1014jh7$2lsi8$1@dont-email.me> <1016i55$35agc$1@dont-email.me>
 <10178hb$39etk$7@dont-email.me> <1017m4a$3cgvm$2@dont-email.me>
 <1018bmt$3gvj0$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 29 May 2025 03:29:09 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6894e564e6a95e6355f574971a6fd9d1";
	logging-data="3705902"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/SVqU2+1j1rnmRM4Ie/nCw"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Deu5gwm1pyDNQP4VTuhQNWbWYKo=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250528-6, 5/28/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <1018bmt$3gvj0$1@dont-email.me>

On 5/28/2025 8:02 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 28/05/2025 19:54, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 28.mei.2025 om 17:02 schreef olcott:
>>> On 5/28/2025 3:40 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 27.mei.2025 om 16:51 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 5/27/2025 3:33 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========