Path: ...!npeer.as286.net!npeer-ng0.as286.net!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis
Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2024 09:36:14 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 125
Message-ID: <v40u4u$2gi7t$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> <v3skoo$1iedv$1@dont-email.me> <v3u9ej$1v7rn$1@dont-email.me> <v3v6i7$23l33$1@dont-email.me> <v3ve38$259cg$1@dont-email.me> <v3vf0b$24orn$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2024 08:36:15 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="701ca2b626bc5ff9a5c97350cec21277";
	logging-data="2640125"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/IFsyGzS1pUiLotCzzcvCy"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:P+4ZsA+7CQM9W8LRdqPNulr8hn0=
Bytes: 7101

On 2024-06-07 17:11:39 +0000, olcott said:

> 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.

Yes, as nothing more is specified in the agreed text. But his expressed
agreement does not extend to any substition of those placeholders.

>> 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.

No, not even onece. You have often caimed to have proven but
you have not presented anything that would even look like a
proof.

-- 
Mikko