Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's
 10/2022 analysis
Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2024 09:10:33 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v41l89$3cg3t$12@i2pn2.org>
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> <v40u4u$2gi7t$1@dont-email.me>
 <v41k6l$2jqdk$8@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2024 13:10:33 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3555453"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v41k6l$2jqdk$8@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 11129
Lines: 230

On 6/8/24 8:52 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/8/2024 1:36 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> 
> It allows substitution of any simulating halt decider for H
> and any finite string input for D. If you are going to lie
> about this I am going to quit looking at what you say.
> 
> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>    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.
> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>

And you can only use that with the definiton Professor Sipser has for 
"Correct Simulation" which you don't do, that of one that goes to 
completion. And it is for an input that is FIXED and doesn't change as 
you imagine alternate H's.

Since your H doesn't do a correct simulation per the canonical 
definition, you can't directly use the first part to claim the second. 
You can't even imagine a hypothetical replace for THIS COPY of H that 
does such a simulation, because such a hypothetical doesn't change the 
input, which will still call the original H, and that simulation WILL 
HALT when you include in it the decision the H will abort its simulation 
and return 0, thus you never got the permission needed to be correct to 
do so, and thus you can be incorrect, which you are.

> 
>>>> 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.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========