Path: ...!news.misty.com!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: Sequence of sequence, selection and iteration matters --- Ben
 agrees to something different.
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2024 22:11:56 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <69c20ccdb6a56df2351095d5e74338bb3bc01dab@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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2024 02:11:56 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2621132"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v6i5lr$13ejf$6@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 6285
Lines: 108

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.