Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!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: Thu, 29 May 2025 13:32:37 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 295
Message-ID: <101a985$j7t$1@dont-email.me>
References: <m99YP.725664$B6tf.610565@fx02.ams4>
 <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>
 <101a3ob$3vd4u$1@dont-email.me> <101a4eh$3vfam$2@dont-email.me>
 <101a574$3v9gr$3@dont-email.me> <101a7fs$3vfam$4@dont-email.me>
 <101a8i1$3v9gr$4@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 20:32:39 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6894e564e6a95e6355f574971a6fd9d1";
	logging-data="19709"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+bNK2nLRlpeQrG9l/rkpjv"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:joYAS5OFWot6QS579RrajpMdEms=
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250529-4, 5/29/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <101a8i1$3v9gr$4@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 16767

On 5/29/2025 1:20 PM, dbush wrote:
> On 5/29/2025 2:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/29/2025 12:23 PM, dbush wrote:
>>> On 5/29/2025 1:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/29/2025 11:58 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>> 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.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========