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 ---Ben's
 10/2022 analysis
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2024 12:11:39 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 157
Message-ID: <v3vf0b$24orn$4@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>
 <v3skoo$1iedv$1@dont-email.me> <v3u9ej$1v7rn$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3v6i7$23l33$1@dont-email.me> <v3ve38$259cg$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2024 19:11:40 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="38a6c8611b5b06dec5d677dcd047c039";
	logging-data="2253687"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18dWbKZxwiQeuW1BNljRH8m"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:93QVUW2GyLA4Oh6R2qsh534BDko=
In-Reply-To: <v3ve38$259cg$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 8000

On 6/7/2024 11:56 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-06-07 14:47:35 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 6/7/2024 1:30 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-06-06 15:31:36 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> 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:
>>>
>>> What does your "first part" mean? There is more than one way to
>>> partition the criteria.
>>>
>>
>>     If simulating halt decider HH correctly simulates its input DD
>>     until HH correctly determines that its simulated DD would never
>>     stop running unless aborted then
> 
> That is all of the criteria, so should not be called "first part".
> Atually Sipser only agreed about H and D, not about HH and DD but
> that does not make any difference for the above.

Professor Sipser knew full well that H and D are mere
placeholders for simulating halt decider H with arbitrary input D.

> In order to prove that the criteria are met you need to prove that
> (1) simulation halt decider HH correctly partially simulates its
> input DD until some point,
> (2) at that point HH can determine that it is possible to continue
> the simulation forever, and > (3) the determination by H is correct.
> So far you have not proven (3).
> 

*I have proven it thousands of times in the last three years*
2,000 times would only be an average of less than two proofs
per day.

Richard has finally admitted that he never looked at
any of these proofs thus finally admitting that his
dishonest dodge CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT strawman deception
fake rebuttal was always dishonest and deceptive.

I have proved it several times to you too.

Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever
stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH.

_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

A {correct simulation} means that each instruction of the
above x86 machine language of DD is correctly simulated
by HH and simulated in the correct order.

Anyone claiming that HH should report on the behavior
of the directly executed DD(DD) is requiring a violation
of the above definition of correct simulation.

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