Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Mike
 Terry Error
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2024 08:53:58 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 79
Message-ID: <v3sf1n$1gra7$11@dont-email.me>
References: <v3j20v$3gm10$2@dont-email.me>
 <J_CdnTaA96jxpcD7nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <87h6eamkgf.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <v3kcdj$3stk9$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3l7uo$13cp$8@dont-email.me> <v3lcat$228t$3@dont-email.me>
 <v3mq9j$chc3$1@dont-email.me> <v3mrli$chc4$1@dont-email.me>
 <_gWdnbwuZPJP2sL7nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <v3nkqr$h7f9$3@dont-email.me> <v3p4ka$sk6h$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3pp7p$v133$8@dont-email.me> <v3s27e$1f9kd$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2024 15:53:59 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4cb2a3366a4bdb85a28904f6e3988fec";
	logging-data="1600839"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19V8GzncANJX7ZaSaZ2XHRO"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ylNS8+4spYi7isDi9RVpHYsWnME=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v3s27e$1f9kd$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4666

On 6/6/2024 5:15 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-06-05 13:29:28 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 6/5/2024 2:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-06-04 18:02:03 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> *HOW PARTIAL SIMULATIONS CORRECTLY DETERMINE NON-HALTING*
>>>>
>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:29:23 AM
>>>> MIT Professor Michael Sipser agreed 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
>>>>
>>>> H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D specifies a
>>>> non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>> </Professor Sipser agreed>
>>>
>>> It is quite clear what Professor Sipser agreed.
>>
>> Those were my verbatim words that he agreed to, no one
>> has ever correctly provided any alternative interpretation
>> that could possibly make my own HH(DD,DD)==0 incorrect.
> 
> One can agree with those words because they are both clear and true.
> Whether they are sufficient to your purposes is another problem but
> that is nor relevant to their acceptablility.
> 
>>> If you use those words
>>> as the second last part of your proof then it sould be obvious that we
>>> need to look at the other parts in order to find an error in the proof.
>>
>> That is slightly more than zero supporting reasoning yet mere gibberish
>> when construed as any rebuttal to this:
> 
> Those who disagree with you about whether something is "gibberish" may
> think that you are stupid. You probably don't want them to think so,
> regardless whether thinking so would be right or wrong.
> 
>> *This unequivocally proves the behavior of DD correctly simulated by HH*
>> https://liarparadox.org/DD_correctly_simulated_by_HH_is_Proven.pdf
> 
> Why would anyone construe my words as any rebuttal to that? That pdf
> merely claims that a partucuar author (a C program) proves two particular
> claims, the second of which is badly formed (because of the two
> verbs it is hard to parse and consequently hard to be sure that the
> apparent meaning or apparent lack of meaning is what is intended).
> 

*I will dumb it down for you some more*
Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH
such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe]

_DD()
[00001e12] 55         push ebp
[00001e13] 8bec       mov  ebp,esp
[00001e15] 51         push ecx
[00001e16] 8b4508     mov  eax,[ebp+08]
[00001e19] 50         push eax      ; push DD
[00001e1a] 8b4d08     mov  ecx,[ebp+08]
[00001e1d] 51         push ecx      ; push DD
[00001e1e] e85ff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH

*That meets this criteria*
*You can either agree or fail to understand*

<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
</Professor Sipser agreed>

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer