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
Subject: Re: Sequence of sequence, selection and iteration matters --- Ben
 agrees
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2024 22:52:41 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <18130c8e8dab40636d95f2a2ddce994e59c8aef5@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> <v6il9g$19ifg$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6jh7l$1ctoi$6@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2024 02:52:41 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2743986"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v6jh7l$1ctoi$6@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5935
Lines: 103

On 7/9/24 10:24 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/9/2024 1:28 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-07-08 23:45:16 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> 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>
>>>
>>> *Ben agrees that the "if" statement has been met*
>>
>> How is that relevant? Even if he did, you can't prove that he was not
>> mistaken. If you could. you wouldn't need to mention him.
>>
>>> *Ben agrees that the "if" statement has been met*
>>> *Ben agrees that the "if" statement has been met*
>>>
>>> On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>  > I don't think that is the shell game.  PO really /has/ an H (it's
>>>  > trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines that P(P)
>>>  > *would* never stop running *unless* aborted.
>>> ...
>>>  > But H determines (correctly) that D would not halt if it were not
>>>  > halted.  That much is a truism.
>>>
>>> *Ben fails to understand this*
>>> If HHH reported that it did not need to abort DDD
>>> before it aborted DDD then HHH would be lying.
>>
>> If he fails to understand one thing you should not assume that
>> he does understand another thing.
>>
> 
> Ben proves that he agrees that the If part of the Professor
> Sipser approved criteria has been met when he paraphrases
> this into his own words:

Nope, he agreed that based on YOUR definiton of the words (and not the 
conventional one that Professor Sipser uses) that your H is a correct 
POOP decider (since what it decides is NOT "Halting" but some strange 
concept of "Needed to abort" based on things being able to be things 
they are not).

> 
> On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>  > But H determines (correctly) that D would not halt
>  > if it were not halted.  That much is a truism.
> 
> *Here is the part that Ben fails to understand*
> *I have never explained this issue to Ben this clearly before*
> Ben seems to believe that HHH must report that it need not
> abort its emulation of DDD because AFTER HHH has already
> aborted this emulation DDD does not need to be aborted.
> 

Right, To be a Halt Decider, HHH must report on the actual behavior of 
the direct execution of the input, and if that halts, then H didn't 
actually need to have done the abort it did. If you changed H to not 
abort, and built D by the actual rules so it still had its copy of the 
original H, you would see that the non-aborting H' would be able to 
simulate the D calling the aborting H would have the aborting H return 
to it and it halts.

Thus, H really didn't need to abort, but only because it did. You 
created the paradox by not using the right computation model, as your H 
and P are not actualy seperate computations as needed.