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 ==========