Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.neodome.net!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant?
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 11:24:25 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <683a2429fa25f491213e51f5289030209c9f07ff@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>
 <dd109397687b2f8e74c3e1e3d826772db8b65e40@i2pn2.org>
 <v62i31$21b7a$1@dont-email.me> <v632ta$23ohm$2@dont-email.me>
 <v63jej$26loi$6@dont-email.me> <v63s4h$28goi$2@dont-email.me>
 <v63s92$28dpi$3@dont-email.me> <v63t3r$28goi$6@dont-email.me>
 <v63tpd$28dpi$8@dont-email.me>
 <67a72a6769c3e0d96ba03aea4988153781ba01a0@i2pn2.org>
 <v665rb$2oun1$9@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 15:24:25 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2132707"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v665rb$2oun1$9@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 7585
Lines: 134

On 7/4/24 8:50 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/4/2024 5:38 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Wed, 03 Jul 2024 11:21:01 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 7/3/2024 11:09 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 03.jul.2024 om 17:55 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 7/3/2024 10:52 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 03.jul.2024 om 15:24 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>> On 7/3/2024 3:42 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>> Op 03.jul.2024 om 05:55 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 10:50 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Am Tue, 02 Jul 2024 14:46:38 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>> 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:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 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).
>>>>>>>>>> Whatever HHH does, it does not run forever but aborts.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> HHH halts on input DDD.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>     HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly halt.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That would be an error of the simulator, because it aborts its own
>>>>>>>> simulation too soon, one cycle before the simulated HHH would
>>>>>>>> return and
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You dishonestly redefined the problem so that it has no correct
>>>>>>> answer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (Ignoring an distracting irrelevant hominem remark.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you think that "What time is a three story building?" must have a
>>>>>> correct answer, you are wrong.
>>>>>> Similarly, if you think that HHH can simulate itself correctly, you
>>>>>> are wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>          int H(ptr p, ptr i);
>>>>>>
>>>>>>          int main()
>>>>>>          {
>>>>>>            return H(main, 0);
>>>>>>          }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You showed that H returns, but that the simulation thinks it does not
>>>>>> return.
>>>>>> DDD is making it unnecessarily complex, but has the same problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> main correctly emulated by H never stops running unless aborted.
>>>>>
>>>> HHH is unable to simulate main correctly, because it unable to simulate
>>>> itself correctly.
>>>> The 'unless phrase' is misleading, because we are talking about a H
>>>> *does* abort. Dreaming of one that does not abort, is irrelevant.
>>>> The correctly simulated main would stop, because the simulated H is
>>>> only one cycle away from its return when its simulation is aborted.
>>>
>>> HHH is required to report on what would happen if HHH did not abort. HHH
>>> is forbidden from getting its own self stuck in infinite execution.
>>> Emulated instances of itself is not its actual self.
>> No. HHH is simulating itself, not a different function that does not
>> abort. All calls are instances of the same code with the same parameters.
>> They all do the same thing: aborting.
>>
> 
> HHH always meets its abort criteria first because it
> always sees at least one fully execution trace of DDD
> before the next inner one. It is stupidly incorrect
> to think that HHH can wait on the next one.
> 

But, since the emulation by HHH doesn't DEFINE the behavior of the 
input, but the x86 language does, the program being emulated continues 
past the point of being aborted and does exactly the same thing and sees 
exactly the same thing as the outer HHH saw, and then continues to show 
that DDD will halt.


Your problem is you fundamentally don't understand the terms you are 
using and confuse observation for fact.

The program HHH uses its emulation to observe PART of the behavior of 
DDD (the part it emulated) and then from that, by using FAULTY LOGIC 
concluded something that was not true.

The BEHAVIOR of the input is fully defined by its FULL representation 
(which includes ALL of the memory in that machine) and the definition 
that these bytes are to be interpreted by the rules of the x86 
instruction set.

That means the behavior of the input is EXACTLY like what would happen 
when we run the program DDD, which has been shown to halt, since you say 
HHH(DDD) does return.

SO, just like the HHH you designed (apparently taling way more time then 
it should have) used incorrect logic on its observations, so do you, 
because you just don't understand the basics of the logic system you are 
working on (or perhaps ANY logic system from some of your other errors).