Path: ...!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: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant?
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2024 21:25:38 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <178edf6a7c5329df35a9af6852ecbd41c0948ea1@i2pn2.org>
References: <v5vkun$1b0k9$1@dont-email.me> <v60dci$1ib5p$1@dont-email.me>
 <v60red$1kr1q$2@dont-email.me> <v61hn7$1oec9$1@dont-email.me>
 <v61ipa$1og2o$2@dont-email.me> <v61jod$1oec9$2@dont-email.me>
 <v61leu$1p1uo$1@dont-email.me>
 <7b6a00827bfcc84e99e19a0d0ae6028ebcdc263c@i2pn2.org>
 <v620vu$1qutj$2@dont-email.me>
 <f6e8f5de9a1e61c7970a92145ce8c1f9087ba431@i2pn2.org>
 <v628ts$1s632$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2024 01:25:38 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1962627"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v628ts$1s632$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 6738
Lines: 146

On 7/2/24 9:18 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/2/2024 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/2/24 7:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/2/2024 5:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 7/2/24 3:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/2/2024 2:17 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 02.jul.2024 om 21:00 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 1:42 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>> Op 02.jul.2024 om 14:22 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 3:22 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Op 02.jul.2024 om 03:25 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>> typedef void (*ptr)();
>>>>>>>>>>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> void Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>    HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> void Infinite_Recursion()
>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>    Infinite_Recursion();
>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(Infinite_Loop);
>>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(Infinite_Recursion);
>>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Every C programmer that knows what an x86 emulator is knows
>>>>>>>>>>> that when HHH emulates the machine language of Infinite_Loop,
>>>>>>>>>>> Infinite_Recursion, and DDD that it must abort these emulations
>>>>>>>>>>> so that itself can terminate normally.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Whether or not it *must* abort is not very relevant. 
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This <is> the problem that I am willing to discuss.
>>>>>>>>> I am unwilling to discuss any other problem.
>>>>>>>>> This does meet the Sipser approved criteria.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <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>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Repeating the same thing that has already been proved to be 
>>>>>>>> irrelevant does not bring the discussion any further.
>>>>>>>> Sipser is not relevant, because that is about a correct 
>>>>>>>> simulation. Your simulation is not correct.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you disagree with this you are either dishonest
>>>>>>> or clueless I no longer care which one.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _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]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> DDD is correctly emulated by HHH which calls an
>>>>>>> emulated HHH(DDD) to repeat the process until aborted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> HHH repeats the process twice and aborts too soon. 
>>>>>
>>>>> You are freaking thinking too damn narrow minded.
>>>>> DDD is correctly emulated by any HHH that can exist
>>>>> which calls this emulated HHH(DDD) to repeat the process
>>>>> until aborted (which may be never).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Only if your definiton of "Correct" includes things that are not 
>>>> correct.
>>>>
>>>> Your problem is you just assume things to exist that don't, because 
>>>> you don't understand what Truth actually means.
>>>
>>
>> So, where is that Diagonalization proof you said you had to show Godel 
>> wrong?
>>
>> Or are you just admitting you LIED about that?
>>
>>> void DDD()
>>> {
>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>> }
>>>
>>> int main()
>>> {
>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>> }
>>>
>>> <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>
>>>
>>> *Professor Sipser would agree that HHH/DDD meets the above criteria*
>>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> Your HHH that returns an answer does NOT "Correctly Simulate" its 
>> input by the definition of producing the exact results of executing 
>> the machine represented by it,
> 
> I can see what you fail to understand. Professor Sipser would
> not make this same mistake.
> 

Nope, YOU are making the mistake. You just ignorant of the definitions.

> Professor Sipser probably does understand the x86 language.
> Shared-memory implementation of the Karp-Sipser
> kernelization process
> https://inria.hal.science/hal-03404798/file/hipc2021.pdf
> 
> 
And the x86 language says the same thing,

YOU are just a liar, as proved by the fact that you can not give the 
Diagonalization proof you claimed you had.

Sorry, you are just too stupid to understand.