| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v41oo8$3cg3t$22@i2pn2.org> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!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 10:10:16 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <v41oo8$3cg3t$22@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> <v41l89$3cg3t$12@i2pn2.org> <v41nei$2kanc$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 14:10:16 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="3555453"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird In-Reply-To: <v41nei$2kanc$8@dont-email.me> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 9426 Lines: 183 On 6/8/24 9:48 AM, olcott wrote: > 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. Nope, Not by the definition that Professor Sipser uses. You don't get to change his meaning. PERIOD. > Nope, > This makes your claim that my simulation is incorrect > defamation and not any actual rebuttal. Nope. Since you don't actual prove what you claim, me saying you don't prove it is a fact and not defamation. > > On 6/5/2024 10:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > > On 6/5/24 11:44 PM, olcott wrote: > >> ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========