Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<cf764821d8b9b08443fc6cd3d285bc0567f31fa6@i2pn2.org> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
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 20:31:08 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <cf764821d8b9b08443fc6cd3d285bc0567f31fa6@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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2024 00:31:08 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="2621132"; 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: <v6hvps$12ktu$3@dont-email.me> Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 5049 Lines: 90 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 > > Ben disagrees with the second part because Ben fails to understand > that HHH cannot correctly report that DDD would stop running until > after HHH forces DDD to stop running. No, HE understand that HHH to be a halt decider MUST correctly report that DDD will stop running since HHH(DDD) returns. YOU are the one that doesn't understand the problem. > > When you need groceries you cannot say that you > don't need groceries until AFTER you get more groceries. > Which is just Red Herring, as I am not a program, and the program is not me. Something you don't understand, maybe because you sold your free will and got a deterministic program instead.