Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_Analysis_of_Flibble=E2=80=99s_Latest=3A_Detecting_v?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?s=2E_Simulating_Infinite_Recursion_ZFC?=
Date: Sat, 24 May 2025 21:49:48 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <ff373c8ab4d69217c2b51beaed9f586374360bf1@i2pn2.org>
References: <Ms4XP.801347$BFJ.668081@fx13.ams4>
 <100l3jh$2v0e9$1@dont-email.me> <100l5c8$2ul3j$2@dont-email.me>
 <100l75g$2vpq3$1@dont-email.me> <100l887$2ul3i$2@dont-email.me>
 <100l9gh$30aak$1@dont-email.me> <100lc4o$30pgm$1@dont-email.me>
 <100ld1u$312c9$1@dont-email.me> <100lg4g$31jt3$1@dont-email.me>
 <100lkdv$32ib3$1@dont-email.me> <100lmif$32v06$1@dont-email.me>
 <100lmp3$32ven$1@dont-email.me> <100m319$38k55$2@dont-email.me>
 <87jz69xlpx.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <100mder$39slu$2@dont-email.me>
 <100oipb$3oge1$1@dont-email.me> <87a573xz0s.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <875xhrtbpr.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <87y0umx63u.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <871pseu9os.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <100ssg5$qc3d$1@dont-email.me>
 <87ldqlsn5j.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <100tjq5$vqsc$1@dont-email.me>
 <100tnq1$10gpu$1@dont-email.me> <100tqdq$110ge$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 25 May 2025 01:54:51 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1804508"; 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: <100tqdq$110ge$4@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US

On 5/24/25 9:06 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/24/2025 7:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/24/2025 6:13 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>> On 24/05/2025 22:40, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>> Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:
>>>>> On 24/05/2025 01:36, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>>>> Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> writes:
>>>>>>> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>> Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> writes:
>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>> And the big picture is that this can be done because false is the
>>>>>>>>> correct halting decision for some halting computations.  He has 
>>>>>>>>> said
>>>>>>>>> this explicitly (as I have posted before) but he has also 
>>>>>>>>> explained it
>>>>>>>>> in words:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> | When-so-ever a halt decider correctly determines that its 
>>>>>>>>> input would
>>>>>>>>> | never halt unless forced to halt by this halt decider this halt
>>>>>>>>> | decider has made a correct not-halting determination.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hmm.  I don't read that the way you do.  Did I miss something?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It assumes that the input is a non-halting computation ("its input
>>>>>>>> would never halt") and asserts that, in certain circumstances,
>>>>>>>> his mythical halt decider correctly determines that the input
>>>>>>>> is non-halting.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When his mythical halt decider correctly determines that its input
>>>>>>>> doesn't halt, it has made a correct non-halting determination.
>>>>>>>> It's just a tautology.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It would be a tautology but for the "unless..." part.  It does 
>>>>>>> not make
>>>>>>> the determination that it does not halt.  It determines that it 
>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>> not halt were it not for the fact that the decider (a simulation) in
>>>>>>> fact halts it.
>>>>>> Right, so the computation itself is non-halting.
>>>>>
>>>>> No no no, it halts!
>>>>
>>>> What halts?
>>>>
>>>>>                       (Assuming we're discussing the computation 
>>>>> DD() with PO's code.)
>>>>
>>>> No, I'm not going to assume that.  *All* I'm talking about is olcott's
>>>> statement:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> | When-so-ever a halt decider correctly determines that its 
>>>>>>>>> input would
>>>>>>>>> | never halt unless forced to halt by this halt decider this halt
>>>>>>>>> | decider has made a correct not-halting determination.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not trying to make it consistent with anything else olcott has
>>>> written.  DD() is irrelevant to what I'm talking about.
>>>>
>>>> As I wrote before, let H be the "halt decider" and let I be its input
>>>> (which represents a computation).  I by itself does not halt.
>>>> I-simulated-by-H may halt if H forces it to halt.
>>>>
>>>> H might be a simulator, or it may just monitor the execution of I with
>>>> the ability to halt it.  H is not a pure simulator; it does not always
>>>> fully simulate the execution of I.
>>>>
>>>> H is given the task of determining whether I is a halting 
>>>> computation or
>>>> not (a task that is not possible in all cases, but is certainly 
>>>> possible
>>>> in some cases).
>>>
>>> Fair enough.
>>>
>>> Your interpretation of Olcott's statement is indeed a tautology.  
>>> That tautology is not very interesting, and most people would 
>>> interpret the statement in the same as you (and me).
>>>
>>> PO's interpretation of the statement is wrong, but that doesn't 
>>> interest you - he said the words and the words are correct in some 
>>> absolute sense even if PO does not understand that sense, and is 
>>> thinking of something different.  PO made a true statement!
>>>
>>> Interestingly, you're doing what PO does, sort of - he says the words 
>>> mean what /he/ says they mean, and that meaning justifies one of his 
>>> false claims.  He supports this claim by saying Sipser agreed with 
>>> the words, even though it's clear Sipser's agreement was with a 
>>> different interpretation of those words.
>>>
>>> <PO speaking>
>>> But hey, Sipser "agreed with those words"!  Sipser just didn't 
>>> appreciate the consequence of their true meaning [aka PO's 
>>> interpretation].  :)
>>> </PO speaking>
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>> So sure, you can say the statement is a tautology, but PO made that
>>>>> statement and his interpretation of what it means is far from your
>>>>> tautology.
>>>>
>>>> Sure, he does that.
>>>>
>>>> My overall point, I suppose, is that if people are going to argue with
>>>> olcott, if he happens to make a true statement it's not helpful to 
>>>> argue
>>>> that its false.
>>>
>>> I'm all for that - I'd go further to say that I champion that point 
>>> of view.  But if PO makes a statement which he intends to mean XXX 
>>> and XXX is false, has he made a true statement just because your 
>>> interpretation of the same statement is YYY, different from XXX, and 
>>> YYY happens to be true?
>>>
>>> In any case, I don't think anyone would disagree with your 
>>> interpretation of the statement being a tautology...  Certainly not 
>>> me. (I think that's all that's to be said on this.)
>>>
>>>
>>> Mike.
>>>
>>
>> _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]
>>
>> Since it is an easily verified fact that DDD emulated
>> by HHH according to the rules of the x86 language
>> would never stop running unless aborted by HHH:
>>
>> I can't imagine how anyone disagreeing with this
>> is not a damned liar. If anyone disagrees knowing
>> that they simply don't understand these things
>> they too are also damned liars.
>>
>>
> 
> int main()
> {
>    DDD();  // No matter what the f-ck its caller does
> }         // The finite string input to the HHH(DDD)
>            // that DDD() calls SPECIFIES a non-halting
>            // sequence of configurations.
> 
> 

But of course, if HHH is supposed to be a halt decider, HHH(DDD) must 
always return the same answer for the same specific program DDD 
specified by its input, and thus isn't being asked about its caller, as 
that CAN'T affect its answer.

The fact that this particular call happens to be from DDD, the program 
it is supposed to be looking at doesn't change that fact.

Sorry, you are just proving you are nothing but a stupid liar that can't 
keep his fact straight, likely because you don't have any.