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: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant?
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2024 11:11:06 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <acc0b947e7a62891addb2f5507f93fc6b341f911@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>
 <7b6a00827bfcc84e99e19a0d0ae6028ebcdc263c@i2pn2.org>
 <v620vu$1qutj$2@dont-email.me>
 <f6e8f5de9a1e61c7970a92145ce8c1f9087ba431@i2pn2.org>
 <v628ts$1s632$1@dont-email.me> <v62vdb$23k3e$1@dont-email.me>
 <v63iqn$26loi$2@dont-email.me> <v65fg3$2l9eg$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6655d$2oun1$2@dont-email.me> <v686rp$36kvf$1@dont-email.me>
 <v68nob$39dkv$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2024 15:11:06 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2247595"; 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: <v68nob$39dkv$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 9907
Lines: 218

On 7/5/24 8:08 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/5/2024 2:20 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-07-04 12:39:09 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 7/4/2024 1:29 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-07-03 13:13:59 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 7/3/2024 2:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-07-03 01:18:52 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/2/24 7:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 5:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/24 3:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 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:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> typedef void (*ptr)();
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> void Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> void Infinite_Recursion()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    Infinite_Recursion();
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(Infinite_Loop);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(Infinite_Recursion);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <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>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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()
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [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]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Only if your definiton of "Correct" includes things that are 
>>>>>>>>>> not correct.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Your problem is you just assume things to exist that don't, 
>>>>>>>>>> because you don't understand what Truth actually means.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, where is that Diagonalization proof you said you had to show 
>>>>>>>> Godel wrong?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Or are you just admitting you LIED about that?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <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>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *Professor Sipser would agree that HHH/DDD meets the above 
>>>>>>>>> criteria*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your HHH that returns an answer does NOT "Correctly Simulate" 
>>>>>>>> its input by the definition of producing the exact results of 
>>>>>>>> executing the machine represented by it,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can see what you fail to understand. Professor Sipser would
>>>>>>> not make this same mistake.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Professor Sipser probably does understand the x86 language.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What makes you think so? How can you justify "probably" instead 
>>>>>> of, say,
>>>>>> "pssobly"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The following contains nothing relevant:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Shared-memory implementation of the Karp-Sipser
>>>>>>> kernelization process
>>>>>>> https://inria.hal.science/hal-03404798/file/hipc2021.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If you make sure to not pay attention than you you
>>>>> won't find anything relevant. I searched for ["sipser" "x86"]
>>>>
>>>> Finding that you present claims without support is relevant enough 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========