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: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly
 reach its own return instruction final state?
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2024 21:39:13 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <225ea989d67a382cf3c87b745d4c27b2397b4e45@i2pn2.org>
References: <v8jh7m$30k55$1@dont-email.me> <v8kou4$3b2ta$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8lcir$3f6vr$4@dont-email.me> <v8ldcs$3fcgg$2@dont-email.me>
 <v8lem0$3ftpo$2@dont-email.me>
 <735401a612caec3eedb531311fd1e09b3d94521d@i2pn2.org>
 <v8lkdb$3h16a$1@dont-email.me>
 <5ee8b34a57f12b0630509183ffbd7c07804634b3@i2pn2.org>
 <v8ll4v$3h8m2$1@dont-email.me>
 <cbde765b8f9e769930b6c8589556907a41d9c256@i2pn2.org>
 <v8lm80$3h8m2$3@dont-email.me> <v8n6mq$3tv07$3@dont-email.me>
 <v8o14v$30uf$1@dont-email.me>
 <950d4eed7965040e841a970d48d5b6f417ff43dc@i2pn2.org>
 <v8oj1n$6kik$3@dont-email.me> <v8pvke$ih0a$1@dont-email.me>
 <4-qdnbdw1JzlRS37nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <dca317e236dd975a3f030ae92ea0aa343833f029@i2pn2.org>
 <v8rpgd$15pid$1@dont-email.me>
 <ad3a7354ca32b7b9adb23db743347f3f12aaec63@i2pn2.org>
 <v8s1im$1b6r5$1@dont-email.me>
 <5VKdndWBS-oqCSz7nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <v8s4rc$1bo1b$1@dont-email.me>
 <M1mdnT4RJLmH1S_7nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <v8tic8$1m8fm$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2024 01:39:13 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1715116"; 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: <v8tic8$1m8fm$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 9083
Lines: 179

On 8/6/24 12:18 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/6/2024 10:58 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>> On 06/08/2024 04:21, olcott wrote:
>>> On 8/5/2024 10:12 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>> On 06/08/2024 03:25, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 8/5/2024 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/5/24 8:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/5/2024 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/5/24 9:49 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 8/5/2024 2:39 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-08-04 18:59:03 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/4/2024 1:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/4/24 9:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/4/2024 1:22 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 03.aug.2024 om 18:35 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>> ∞ instructions of DDD correctly emulated by HHH[∞] never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach their own "return" instruction final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you are saying that the infinite one does?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dreaming again of HHH that does not abort? Dreams are no 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> substitute for facts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The HHH that aborts and halts, halts. A tautology.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is the right answer to the wrong question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am asking whether or not DDD emulated by HHH
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaches its "return" instruction.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But the "DDD emulated by HHH" is the program DDD above,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When I say DDD emulated by HHH I mean at any level of
>>>>>>>>>>> emulation and not and direct execution.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you mean anything other than what the words mean you wihout
>>>>>>>>>> a definition in the beginning of the same message then it is
>>>>>>>>>> not reasonable to expect anyone to understand what you mean.
>>>>>>>>>> Instead people may think that you mean what you say or that
>>>>>>>>>> you don't know what you are saying.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you don't understand what the word "emulate" means look it up.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> DDD (above) cannot possibly reach its own "return" instruction 
>>>>>>>>> halt
>>>>>>>>> state when its machine code is correctly emulated by HHH.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Only because an HHH that does so never returns to anybody.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you really not understand that recursive emulation <is>
>>>>>>> isomorphic to infinite recursion?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not when the emulation is conditional.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Infinite_Recursion() meets the exact same condition that DDD
>>>>> emulated by HHH makes and you know this. Since you are so
>>>>> persistently trying to get away contradicting the semantics
>>>>> of the x86 language the time is coming where there is zero
>>>>> doubt that this is an honest mistake.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ben does correctly understand that the first half of the Sipser
>>>>> approved criteria is met. Even Mike finally admitted this.
>>>>
>>>> I don't recall doing that.  Please provide a reference for this.
>>>>
>>>
>>> On 8/2/2024 8:19 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>  > It's easy enough to say "PO has his own criterion for
>>>  > halting, which is materially different from the HP condition,
>>>  > and so we all agree PO is correct by his own criterion...
>>>
>>
>> That is not agreeing that the first half of the Sipser approved 
>> criteria is met. 
> 
> That <is> my own criterion. Whatever else could you mean?
> Do you still disagree with Ben on this point?

No, it isn't, because he means something different by the words than you do.

That seems to be your method of lying, lets words have different 
meanings so you can play shell games with the truth.

> 
>> I was clearly discussing Ben's comments.  If I had been agreeing with 
>> your claim I would have said it explicitly - not that "it's easy 
>> enough to say...".  I am very confident that if Sipser actually 
>> understood how you were trying to misinterpret his words, he would 
>> quickly point out that they do not apply in the scenario you propose.
>>
> 
> <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>
> 
> void DDD()
> {
>    HHH(DDD);
>    return;
> }
> 
> I propose that DDD correctly emulated by HHH according to
> the semantics of the x86 language would be required to abort
> its emulation of its finite string input of the x86 machine
> language of DDD.

But a correct emulation CAN'T abort, so you are just admitting that you 
are lying.

> 
> Do you think that professor Sipser would disagree with the
> semantics of the x86 language?

He doesn't, but you don't understand them. Once YOU decide that you will 
make *THE* HHH to abort, then the logic you did about HHH correctly 
emulating its input no longer applies, as the HHH that DDD calls IS that 
HHH that you decide would abort, and thus DDD calls an HHH that aborts 
and returns, and thus DDD will Halt.

> 
> What is every single detail of exactly how you believe
> that Professor Sipser could possibly disagree?
> 

That you HHH that aborts its simulation and return actually does a 
correct simulation of the input to allow it to use the second clause.

>> Pleas stop misrepresenting my views.  [I accept you did not mean to do 
>> this, and you have a basic inability to comprehend what other posters 
>> are actually saying.  I'll even accept that I might have expressed 
>> myself more clearly on this occasion!]
>>
>> In fact, why not go further, and stop altogether your fallacious 
>> appeals to authority?  They do not look good to casual readers as they 
>> suggest you have no logical reasoning to argue your case.
>>
>>
>> Mike.
>>
> 
> I resort to appeals to authority to get people to bother to
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========