Path: ...!news.misty.com!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
 proves that he agrees to my meanings
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2024 22:52:55 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <f2a4cdb0d20fa7f44b4a7608481d99711bc39028@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>
 <ba7198db7494167881efe8d1afa1600b41342c95@i2pn2.org>
 <v6i487$13ejf$3@dont-email.me>
 <77a477b609ed9fc2184aded539ebd054dfec51de@i2pn2.org>
 <v6i5lr$13ejf$6@dont-email.me>
 <69c20ccdb6a56df2351095d5e74338bb3bc01dab@i2pn2.org>
 <v6i824$17hpj$4@dont-email.me>
 <fb3c5fcfc52f965684fe5e2f5b34a299bb35681b@i2pn2.org>
 <v6idto$185d2$3@dont-email.me>
 <5d0636827eab52e995bbbe6398de167d9c3dbf75@i2pn2.org>
 <v6ji58$1ctoi$9@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2024 02:52:55 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2743986"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v6ji58$1ctoi$9@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 11128
Lines: 212

On 7/9/24 10:40 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/9/2024 6:29 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/9/24 12:22 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/8/2024 9:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 7/8/24 10:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/8/2024 9:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/8/24 10:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/8/2024 8:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/8/24 9:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/8/2024 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 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 
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *That the verbatim words of the If statement are fulfilled*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In other words, you think changing meaning of words in a 
>>>>>>>> statement is valid logic, but it is actually one form of LIE.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ben agrees:
>>>>>>> *That the verbatim words of the If statement are fulfilled*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But with difffent meaning of the words, so you LIE.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ben proved that agreed that my meanings of my words were
>>>>> fulfilled by paraphrasing my words into his own words.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>  > But H determines (correctly) that D would not halt if
>>>>>  > it were not halted.  That much is a truism.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ben only disagreed that my meanings of my words entail
>>>>> the second part.
>>>>
>>>> No, Ben agreed that with YOUR definiton of the words, which are 
>>>> diffferent than profressor Sipser, you can show that your POOP 
>>>> problem is correctly solved for P by H.
>>>>
>>>> You are INCORRECT about Professor Sipser;s meaning, and thus about 
>>>> Halting.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ben felt that HHH could say that it didn't need to
>>>>> abort DDD because AFTER it does abort DDD it doesn't
>>>>> need to abort DDD.
>>>>>
>>>>> SEQUENCE MATTERS !!!
>>>>> SEQUENCE CANNOT BE CORRECTLY IGNORED !!!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> TRUTH MATTERS.
>>>>
>>>> The problem is the thing we are talking about, the behavior of DDD 
>>>> isn't determined by the simulation HHH does of it, but what HHH does 
>>>> with its simulation. If HHH returns, then so does DDD, even if HHH 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========