| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v41nei$2kanc$8@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.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 ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2024 08:48:01 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 171 Message-ID: <v41nei$2kanc$8@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> <v40u4u$2gi7t$1@dont-email.me> <v41k6l$2jqdk$8@dont-email.me> <v41l89$3cg3t$12@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2024 15:48:02 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="99ea1b6838dd1404bad406fc122dbf0f"; logging-data="2763500"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19SQ43jSTqm/6tT0SuTjn8D" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:vWUmmkW3Abx/w0B5pkl29xb2cuE= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <v41l89$3cg3t$12@i2pn2.org> Bytes: 8970 On 6/8/2024 8:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > 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, I prove that my simulation is correct and your "rebuttal" is refusal to look at this proof. This makes your claim that my simulation is incorrect defamation and not any actual rebuttal. On 6/5/2024 10:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/5/24 11:44 PM, olcott wrote: >> >> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK >> TO ME ABOUT UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT >> I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE THAT I AM INCORRECT > > But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you > are correct, because I am not willing to put > that effort into your worthless claim. > That you call my proof not a proof is also defamation unless until you correctly point out anything that is missing from this proof. ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========