Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!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
 proves that he agrees to my meanings
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2024 07:29:15 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <5d0636827eab52e995bbbe6398de167d9c3dbf75@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>
 <v6i1b9$12ktu$5@dont-email.me>
 <ba7198db7494167881efe8d1afa1600b41342c95@i2pn2.org>
 <v6i487$13ejf$3@dont-email.me>
 <77a477b609ed9fc2184aded539ebd054dfec51de@i2pn2.org>
 <v6i5lr$13ejf$6@dont-email.me>
 <69c20ccdb6a56df2351095d5e74338bb3bc01dab@i2pn2.org>
 <v6i824$17hpj$4@dont-email.me>
 <fb3c5fcfc52f965684fe5e2f5b34a299bb35681b@i2pn2.org>
 <v6idto$185d2$3@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 11:29:15 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2678676"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v6idto$185d2$3@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 8992
Lines: 172

On 7/9/24 12:22 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/8/2024 9:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/8/24 10:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/8/2024 9:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 7/8/24 10:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/8/2024 8:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/8/24 9:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/8/2024 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/8/24 8:47 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
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> He literally agrees with MY meanings that the "if" has
>>>>>>>>> been fulfilled.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, Ben agrees that 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *That the verbatim words of the If statement are fulfilled*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In other words, you think changing meaning of words in a statement 
>>>>>> is valid logic, but it is actually one form of LIE.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ben agrees:
>>>>> *That the verbatim words of the If statement are fulfilled*
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But with difffent meaning of the words, so you LIE.
>>>
>>> Ben proved that agreed that my meanings of my words were
>>> fulfilled by paraphrasing my words into his own words.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Ben only disagreed that my meanings of my words entail
>>> the second part.
>>
>> No, Ben agreed that with YOUR definiton of the words, which are 
>> diffferent than profressor Sipser, you can show that your POOP problem 
>> is correctly solved for P by H.
>>
>> You are INCORRECT about Professor Sipser;s meaning, and thus about 
>> Halting.
>>
>>>
>>> Ben felt that HHH could say that it didn't need to
>>> abort DDD because AFTER it does abort DDD it doesn't
>>> need to abort DDD.
>>>
>>> SEQUENCE MATTERS !!!
>>> SEQUENCE CANNOT BE CORRECTLY IGNORED !!!
>>>
>>
>> TRUTH MATTERS.
>>
>> The problem is the thing we are talking about, the behavior of DDD 
>> isn't determined by the simulation HHH does of it, but what HHH does 
>> with its simulation. If HHH returns, then so does DDD, even if HHH 
>> doesn't see it.
> 
> The behavior of DDD is determined by its machine code.
> 

Right, which include the machine code of HHH which determines that DDD 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========