Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Bad faith and dishonesty
Date: Sat, 31 May 2025 12:13:42 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 239
Message-ID: <101eh85$11r84$1@dont-email.me>
References: <m99YP.725664$B6tf.610565@fx02.ams4> <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$2@dont-email.me> <101br1a$csmv$1@dont-email.me> <101cik7$hfof$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 31 May 2025 11:13:42 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="bd1cfc1e45b4e90432c7d9e9043b3f3e";
	logging-data="1109252"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+aLGUjT+yBT2JbAIcW0fYZ"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:O3u4vK4zsMVwX1H//YrgHYoVJ3U=

On 2025-05-30 15:24:55 +0000, olcott said:

> On 5/30/2025 3:42 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 29.mei.2025 om 18:42 schreef olcott:
>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> It does not show this.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> New slave_stack at:14e33e
>>>>>>>>> is the point where HHH begins simulating itself simulating DDD.
>>>>>>>>> We can see that this *is* happening because it derives the
>>>>>>>>> correct execution trace of DDD simulated by HHH.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>   machine   stack     stack     machine        assembly
>>>>>>>>>   address   address   data      code           language
>>>>>>>>>   ========  ========  ========  ============== =============
>>>>>>>>> [000021be][00103872][00000000] 55             push ebp
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========