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: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise ---
 pinned down --- canonical
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2024 14:59:27 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v3ifef$2qu71$4@i2pn2.org>
References: <v3501h$lpnh$1@dont-email.me> <v3bale$222n5$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3bbs2$2im01$1@i2pn2.org> <v3bcre$22a8n$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3bduk$2im01$2@i2pn2.org> <v3bedb$22f8h$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3bfbm$2im01$3@i2pn2.org> <v3bg39$22o6m$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3cbhu$2k3ld$1@i2pn2.org> <v3clo2$28p7n$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3dft1$2lfup$1@i2pn2.org> <v3dhob$2dio8$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3dk0d$2lfup$2@i2pn2.org> <v3dkf2$2e2po$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3dmnc$2lfup$3@i2pn2.org> <v3do66$2ejq2$1@dont-email.me>
 <MPG.40c4fbcb474992459896fd@reader.eternal-september.org>
 <v3f9ha$2qh0t$1@dont-email.me> <v3ffpc$2n53n$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v3fgfb$2riae$2@dont-email.me> <v3fh1a$2n53o$5@i2pn2.org>
 <v3fhkr$2rsbs$2@dont-email.me> <v3fig4$2n53n$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v3fj8h$2rsbs$6@dont-email.me> <v3g0bg$2n53n$18@i2pn2.org>
 <v3g0n2$2v3lp$2@dont-email.me> <v3g329$2n53n$21@i2pn2.org>
 <v3g3np$2vk55$1@dont-email.me> <v3hdoq$39nv5$3@dont-email.me>
 <v3i0m9$3cpu7$3@dont-email.me> <v3iddo$3f51j$4@dont-email.me>
 <v3ie96$3f571$5@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2024 18:59:27 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2980065"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v3ie96$3f571$5@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 9653
Lines: 182

On 6/2/24 2:39 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/2/2024 1:24 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 02.jun.2024 om 16:47 schreef olcott:
>>> On 6/2/2024 4:24 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 01.jun.2024 om 23:27 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 6/1/2024 4:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/1/24 4:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/1/2024 3:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/1/24 12:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/2024 11:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/24 12:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/2024 11:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/24 11:58 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/2024 10:46 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/24 10:00 AM, olcott wrote: >> DD correctly 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated by HH remains stuck in recursive simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all the time it is simulated even when an infinite number 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of steps
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are simulated.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, are you admitting that HH just gets stuck and doesn't 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer when asked HH(DD,DD)?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every DD correctly simulated by any HH remains stuck in 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> recursive simulation for 1 to ∞ steps of correct simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So? Since you definition of "Correct Simulation" is 
>>>>>>>>>>>> non-canonical, that doesn't mean anything.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *When the "canonical" definition tries to get away with 
>>>>>>>>>>> refuting this*
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> DD correctly emulated by HH with an x86 emulator cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>>>> reach past its own machine instruction [00001c2e] in any finite
>>>>>>>>>>> number of steps of correct emulation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No, it doesn't "Refute" that, 
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *Then what I said stands unrefuted*
>>>>>>>>> *Then what I said stands unrefuted*
>>>>>>>>> *Then what I said stands unrefuted*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And unproven, and still meaningless.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *We can't move on to any other point until*
>>>>>>>>> (a) You acknowledge that my above statement about the behavior 
>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>> x86 machine code of DD is irrefutable and applies to the C 
>>>>>>>>> source code version of DD and applies to the Linz proof.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (b) You correctly refute what I said above about the behavior 
>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>> x86 machine code of DD.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But why do we care about the fact that all your HH that answer 
>>>>>>>> just gave up on their simulation before the actual canonically 
>>>>>>>> correct simulation would have reached a final state, 
>>>>>>> It seems to me (and I may be wrong you may be confused)
>>>>>>> That we cannot move on to any other point simply because
>>>>>>> you are simply too freaking dishonest.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You use moving on to other points to endlessly avoid any
>>>>>>> closure on any point.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We can not move on, because you want to base your arguement on 
>>>>>> falsehoods.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> typedef int (*ptr)();  // ptr is pointer to int function in C
>>>>> 00       int HH(ptr p, ptr i);
>>>>> 01       int DD(ptr p)
>>>>> 02       {
>>>>> 03         int Halt_Status = HH(p, p);
>>>>> 04         if (Halt_Status)
>>>>> 05           HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>> 06         return Halt_Status;
>>>>> 07       }
>>>>> 08
>>>>> 09       int main()
>>>>> 10       {
>>>>> 11         HH(DD,DD);
>>>>> 12         return 0;
>>>>> 13       }
>>>>>
>>>>> Every DD correctly simulated by any HH of the infinite set of HH/DD
>>>>> pairs that match the above template never reaches past its own 
>>>>> simulated
>>>>> line 03 in 1 to ∞ steps of correct simulation of DD by HH.
>>>>
>>>> Similarly:
>>>> Every HH correctly simulated by itself of the infinite set of HH/DD
>>>> pairs that match the above template never reaches past its own 
>>>> simulated
>>>> return in 1 to ∞ steps of correct simulation of HH by HH.
>>>>
>>>
>>> DD correctly simulated by HH includes HH correctly simulating itself
>>> simulating DD as an intrinsic aspect of DD correctly simulated by HH. 
>>> > *It is only the outermost directly executed HH that is required to 
>>> halt*
>>
>> It might be possible to use the following criteria to see whether a 
>> program halts:
>> a) The direct executed program halts.
>> b) The simulation of the program by HH reaches its final state.
>>
>> If you choose a then both DD and HH halt.
>> If you choose b then neither DD, nor HH halt.
>>
>> Choosing different criteria for different functions only because you 
>> need it in your claim would be dishonest.
>>
>>>
>>> When an input DD gets instances of itself HH stuck in recursive
>>> simulation this input is rejected as non-halting.
>>
>> Similarly, when the partial input HH (part of DD) gets instances of 
>> itself HH stuck in recursive simulation this partial input is rejected 
>> as non-halting.
>>
>>
> 
> *I always use this same criteria* People here verified that
> I really did contact professor Sipser.
> 
> Introduction to the Theory of Computation, by Michael Sipser
> https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-Michael-Sipser/dp/113318779X/
> 
> On 10/13/2022 11:29:23 AM
> MIT Professor Michael Sipser agreed that this verbatim paragraph is
> correct (He has neither reviewed nor agreed to anything else in this paper)
> 
> <Professor Sipser agreed>
> 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

And since the ONLY simulation that Professor Sipser would consider 
correct, would be a simulation that continues until it reaches a final 
state.

Thus, if H doesn't actually do that, then it is impossible for H to 
correctly determine that H's simulation would do that, since it won't do 
a correct simulation.

> 
> H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D specifies a
> non-halting sequence of configurations.
> </Professor Sipser agreed>
> 

So, since an H that does abort its simulation, can not have done a 
correct simulation, you can never actually apply that definition literally.

What CAN be done, and likely what he was thinking, was that if H can 
look at what would hypothetically happen if THIS INSTANCE of H were 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========