Path: ...!news.snarked.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!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 19:59:44 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <dcd1b46e5442c8a532a33873f396b9cb9b0688a5@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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2024 23:59:44 -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
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v6htmc$12ktu$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4440
Lines: 77

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

> 
> 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.
> 
> *Ben fails to understand this*
> If HHH reported that it did not need to abort DDD
> before it aborted DDD then HHH would be lying.
> 
> 
>