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,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Sequence of sequence, selection and iteration matters --- Ben
 agrees
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2024 21:27:46 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <ba7198db7494167881efe8d1afa1600b41342c95@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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2024 01:27:46 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2621133"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v6i1b9$12ktu$5@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5587
Lines: 97

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 with your meaning that your statement, which isn't 
about halting, is true. In other words, you have a decider H that 
corrected determined that P doesn't POOP.

You HAVEN'T satisfied Professor Sipser statement, as that uses the 
proper definition of correct simulation, and you don't meet that, so you 
can't claim correct halt deciding.

That you are so dumb as to not understand that just shows how dumb you are.