| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v43oks$3b46v$1@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: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2024 11:20:44 +0300 Organization: - Lines: 121 Message-ID: <v43oks$3b46v$1@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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2024 10:20:45 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="77c7217a9c7c64c7766c5a2e0efa49c1"; logging-data="3510495"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18ucUe1JJRtJ9/JN4rN5JcV" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:hhlyUczIQh5IodJ/uRqsphVLds8= Bytes: 7032 On 2024-06-08 12:52:36 +0000, olcott said: > 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. Sipser clearly said that his agreement does not extend to any substitutions. -- Mikko