Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Bad faith and dishonesty
Date: Wed, 28 May 2025 21:32:43 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <b61ca3cb4c2efd5a460930b114469cd815bad124@i2pn2.org>
References: <m99YP.725664$B6tf.610565@fx02.ams4>
 <100v9ta$1d5lg$7@dont-email.me> <100ve61$1e53o$2@dont-email.me>
 <100vh47$1f7a8$1@dont-email.me> <100via6$1lno$1@news.muc.de>
 <100vo5n$1go1g$1@dont-email.me> <100vomn$1fqmu$1@dont-email.me>
 <100vpkf$1h90o$1@dont-email.me> <100vrlj$1hntd$1@dont-email.me>
 <100vrnm$1hnk3$2@dont-email.me> <100vs81$os9$1@news.muc.de>
 <100vskl$1hu7f$1@dont-email.me> <100vt68$1hntd$3@dont-email.me>
 <100vukd$1i93o$1@dont-email.me> <1010hv5$1m2v4$1@dont-email.me>
 <1010j9h$1m8mk$1@dont-email.me> <10119hn$1thsm$2@dont-email.me>
 <101215o$22da5$3@dont-email.me> <10123r5$22udp$5@dont-email.me>
 <10124ep$22da5$15@dont-email.me> <1012c71$24dfd$2@dont-email.me>
 <1012d2k$24p17$3@dont-email.me> <1012dru$24dfd$6@dont-email.me>
 <1012ecu$25ce3$1@dont-email.me> <1012fh9$24dfe$9@dont-email.me>
 <1012gab$25ej1$3@dont-email.me> <1013tct$2h8vj$2@dont-email.me>
 <1014jh7$2lsi8$1@dont-email.me> <1016i55$35agc$1@dont-email.me>
 <10178hb$39etk$7@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 29 May 2025 10:51:48 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2406135"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <10178hb$39etk$7@dont-email.me>

On 5/28/25 11:02 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/28/2025 3:40 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 27.mei.2025 om 16:51 schreef olcott:
>>> On 5/27/2025 3:33 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 26.mei.2025 om 21:44 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 5/26/2025 2:30 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 26.mei.2025 om 21:11 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>> On 5/26/2025 2:02 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>> Op 26.mei.2025 om 20:48 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/26/2025 1:34 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Op 26.mei.2025 om 18:21 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/26/2025 11:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 26.mei.2025 om 17:25 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/26/2025 3:42 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 26.mei.2025 om 04:22 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/25/2025 9:00 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/05/2025 21:30, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/25/2025 3:05 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/25/2025 3:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Mike understood this perfectly*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2025 7:36 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --------- Sipser quote -----
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we can easily interpret that as saying exactly what I 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> said a SHD
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does above.  It tells PO that in the tight loop 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example, H correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates as far as [A], at which point it correctly 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determines that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "its simulated input would never stop running unless 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aborted", so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it can decide "non-halting".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All correct and natural, and no deliberately
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false premises to mislead PO.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2025 7:36 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://al.howardknight.net/? 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3C1003cu5%242p3g1%241%40dont- 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> email.me%3E 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you dishonestly left out the part that immediately 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> follows where he states that you are wrong:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *VERFIED FACT*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mike Terry Proves ---
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are exactly met
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just for the record:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1)  I didn't offer any proofs of /anything/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -  I did explain how Sipser's words can be naturally 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interpreted as explaining
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     how a simulating halt decider can operate.  [That is 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not a proof.]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems like proof to me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When-so-ever anyone provides complete and correct reasoning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> showing how an expression of language is true, this is a 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -  I also explained why that explanation *doesn't* apply 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to your HHH/ DDD pair
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes you did do this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *On 5/14/2025 7:36 PM, Mike Terry wrote*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the simulated input (DD) /does/ stop running if simulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> far enough, but HHH simply /doesn't/ go far enough
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _DDD()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002192] 55             push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002193] 8bec           mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002195] 6892210000     push 00002192
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000219a] e833f4ffff     call 000015d2  // call HHH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000219f] 83c404         add esp,+04
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000021a2] 5d             pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000021a3] c3             ret
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [000021a3]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I use the simpler DDD because everyone here gets
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> completely confused even by this simple example.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How many recursive emulations does HHH have to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wait before its emulated DDD magically halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on its own without ever needing to be aborted?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once you and I work through this one point I may
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finally have complete closure.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again you make the same mistake by not only changing the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider, but also the input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We are discussing the input where DDD calls a HHH that 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aborts after one cycle.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *No we are not. We are discussing this*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *On 5/14/2025 7:36 PM, Mike Terry wrote*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the simulated input (DD) /does/ stop running if simulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>> far enough, but HHH simply /doesn't/ go far enough
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And that is the bug in HHH. It does not go far enough.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No Mike is just wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> _DDD()
>>>>>>>>>>> [00002192] 55             push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>> [00002193] 8bec           mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>> [00002195] 6892210000     push 00002192
>>>>>>>>>>> [0000219a] e833f4ffff     call 000015d2  // call HHH
>>>>>>>>>>> [0000219f] 83c404         add esp,+04
>>>>>>>>>>> [000021a2] 5d             pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>> [000021a3] c3             ret
>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [000021a3]
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> How many recursive emulations does HHH have to
>>>>>>>>>>> wait before its emulated DDD magically halts
>>>>>>>>>>> on its own without ever needing to be aborted?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No, *you* are just wrong.
>>>>>>>>>> A correct simulation needs only one recursion more than the 
>>>>>>>>>> simulated HHH. The bug in HHH is, that it aborts one cycle too 
>>>>>>>>>> early.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The outermost HHH always sees one whole recursive emulation
>>>>>>>>> more than the next inner one. 
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Only if you change the input with the simulator.
>>>>>>>> Every simulator that tries to simulate itself, fails.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My code proves otherwise.
>>>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your code proves exactly my point. That Halt7.c is part of the 
>>>>>> input and specifies an abort, so the program specified by the 
>>>>>> input halts. But HHH fails to see that. It does not even start to 
>>>>>> simulate itself, but aborts at that point. So, it is in no way a 
>>>>>> proof that your simulator is able to simulate itself, let alone to 
>>>>>> simulate itself correctly.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is a verified fact that HHH does simulate itself simulating DDD.
>>>>> If you are too incompetent to understand that this does not count
>>>>> as a rebuttal.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It seems you do not understand what 'simulate' means. HHH does not 
>>>> simulate itself, but aborts the simulation at the point where the 
>>>> simulation of itself should start. 
>>>
>>> Counter-factual, nitwit.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========