Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Mike
 Terry Error
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2024 10:31:36 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 102
Message-ID: <v3skoo$1iedv$1@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>
 <v3sf1n$1gra7$11@dont-email.me> <v3sjo9$1ialb$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2024 17:31:37 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4cb2a3366a4bdb85a28904f6e3988fec";
	logging-data="1653183"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/s1P56MDtJBE4LrWgH8daU"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:TiuSKpPEZbPZrIgdXpAJqMHpDwI=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v3sjo9$1ialb$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5593

On 6/6/2024 10:14 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-06-06 13:53:58 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> 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*
> 
> Did you knwo that "dumb it down" does not mean 'change the topic'?
> 
>> 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*
> 
> It doesn't if you mean the criteria implied by the subject line.
> 

Yes it does mean that when we ourselves detect the repeating
state of DD correctly simulated by HH does meet the first part
of the following criteria:

<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>

That the second part <is> logically entailed by this first part.
*No one can possibly correctly disagree with that*

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