Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<v41pbc$2kanc$15@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!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 ---Should I quit Richard at this point? Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2024 09:20:28 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 224 Message-ID: <v41pbc$2kanc$15@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> <v41nei$2kanc$8@dont-email.me> <v41oo8$3cg3t$22@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 16:20:28 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="99ea1b6838dd1404bad406fc122dbf0f"; logging-data="2763500"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/uG0PQHirlxt2ZqLe0rXmG" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:55oJ8Yei/oPQEkvdOeQVEh/ejiI= In-Reply-To: <v41oo8$3cg3t$22@i2pn2.org> Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 11018 On 6/8/2024 9:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > 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: ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========