Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Sequence of sequence, selection and iteration matters --- Ben
 agrees (typo corrected)
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2024 22:13:08 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <11f09a2e12e5aa6ed05b450e70ab090286496ccc@i2pn2.org>
References: <v6e7va$c4sv$1@dont-email.me> <v6g444$pdc2$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6go4d$sg7f$1@dont-email.me>
 <80ebfd233bf599468126ddf048190bd0799605bd@i2pn2.org>
 <v6htmc$12ktu$1@dont-email.me>
 <dcd1b46e5442c8a532a33873f396b9cb9b0688a5@i2pn2.org>
 <v6hvps$12ktu$3@dont-email.me>
 <cf764821d8b9b08443fc6cd3d285bc0567f31fa6@i2pn2.org>
 <v6i3fg$13ejf$1@dont-email.me>
 <9b2d4259e78220028f0494f2e2aba382a3402f21@i2pn2.org>
 <v6i5vu$17hpj$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2024 02:13:08 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2621133"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v6i5vu$17hpj$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 6372
Lines: 114

On 7/8/24 10:06 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/8/2024 9:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/8/24 9:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/8/2024 7:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 7/8/24 8:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/8/2024 6:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/8/24 7:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/8/2024 6:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/8/24 9:04 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/8/2024 2:22 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-07-07 14:16:10 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> _DDD()
>>>>>>>>>>> [00002172] 55               push ebp      ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>>>>> [00002173] 8bec             mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>>>>> [00002175] 6872210000       push 00002172 ; push DDD
>>>>>>>>>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff       call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
>>>>>>>>>>> [0000217f] 83c404           add esp,+04
>>>>>>>>>>> [00002182] 5d               pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>> [00002183] c3               ret
>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sufficient knowledge of the x86 language conclusively proves
>>>>>>>>>>> that the call from DDD correctly emulated by HHH to HHH(DDD)
>>>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly return for any pure function HHH.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Suffifcient knowledge of the x86 language makes obvious that
>>>>>>>>>> DDD returns if and only if HHH returns.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That is insufficient knowledge. Sufficient knowledge proves that
>>>>>>>>> DDD correctly simulated by HHH meets this criteria.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope, YOU have the insufficent knowledge, since you don't 
>>>>>>>> understand that the x86 language says programs are 
>>>>>>>> deterministic, and their behavior is fully establish when they 
>>>>>>>> are written, and running or simulating them is only a way to 
>>>>>>>> observe that behavior, and the only CORRECT observation of all 
>>>>>>>> the behavior, so letting that operation reach its final state.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 
>>>>>>> 10/13/2022>
>>>>>>>      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.
>>>>>>> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 
>>>>>>> 10/13/2022>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which you H doesn't meet, since the definition of "Correct 
>>>>>> Simulation" here (as for most people) is a simulation that exactly 
>>>>>> reproduces the behavior of the full program the input represents, 
>>>>>> which means a simulaiton that doesn't abort.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since your H doesn't do that, or correctly determine what one of 
>>>>>> those would do (since it would halt since you H returns 0) so you 
>>>>>> CAN'T correctly predict that which doesn't happen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Ben agrees that the "if" statement has been met*
>>>>>>> *Ben agrees that the "if" statement has been met*
>>>>>>> *Ben agrees that the "if" statement has been met*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, he agress that your H, which is NOT a Halt Decider, is 
>>>>>> correctly answering your non-halt-deciding question.  In other 
>>>>>> words, it is a correct POOP decide.r
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It is literally true that Ben agrees that the "if" statement
>>>>> has been met.
>>>>
>>>> Same words, but different meanings.
>>>>
>>>> SO, NO
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ben disagrees with the second part because Ben fails to understand
>>>>> that HHH cannot correctly report that DDD would stop running until
>>>>> after HHH forces DDD to stop running.
>>>>
>>>> No, HE understand that HHH to be a halt decider MUST correctly 
>>>> report that DDD will stop running since HHH(DDD) returns.
>>>>
>>>> YOU are the one that doesn't understand the problem.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When you need groceries you cannot say that you
>>>>> don't need groceries until AFTER you get more groceries.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which is just Red Herring, as I am not a program, and the program is 
>>>> not me.
>>>>
>>>> Something you don't understand, maybe because you sold your free 
>>>> will and got a deterministic program instead.
>>>
>>> *Free will does not make lies into truth*
>>>
>>> If HHH reports that it does not need to abort
>>> DDD before it aborts DDD then HHH is a liar.
>>
>> No, It COULD report that it has determined that it doesn't NEED to 
>> abort its simulation, but does so anyway. 
> 
> Says someone that acts as if lies are true.
> If HHH reports that it didn't need to abort then HHH lies.
> 

Why do you say that, since it DOES abort, it doesn't need to.

You think HHH can be something it isn't because you just don't know what 
a program is.