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: Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Bad faith and dishonesty
Date: Thu, 29 May 2025 17:58:52 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 222
Message-ID: <101a3ob$3vd4u$1@dont-email.me>
References: <m99YP.725664$B6tf.610565@fx02.ams4>
 <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>
 <1017ot3$3db44$2@dont-email.me> <1019640$3pfah$1@dont-email.me>
 <1019ve9$3u8nj$2@dont-email.me> <1019vm5$3trm2$3@dont-email.me>
 <101a2p1$3v22u$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 29 May 2025 18:58:52 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="494981cd6bbd6657eae0c6d049889b2d";
	logging-data="4175006"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX192V7Uy+t06TOkZ/0b/TFplUBIs2nhqs6w="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Firefox/91.0 SeaMonkey/2.53.18.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:u8zr1IKY2u08AiwvMO0x0T9skDQ=
In-Reply-To: <101a2p1$3v22u$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 13652

On 29/05/2025 17:42, olcott wrote:
> On 5/29/2025 10:49 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 29.mei.2025 om 17:45 schreef olcott:
>>> On 5/29/2025 3:33 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2025-05-28 19:41:23 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/28/2025 1:54 PM, 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Counter-factual, nitwit.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It seems you do not even understand what 'counter-factual' means. Your own traces show that 
>>>>>>>> the simulation is aborted without simulating the call instruction that calls HHH.
>>>>>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========