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 ---Ben's
 10/2022 analysis
Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2024 08:53:20 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 154
Message-ID: <v44c4g$3harn$3@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> <v43oks$3b46v$1@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 15:53:21 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f8e472f6a5ded880f3c8d2cedf42e75a";
	logging-data="3713911"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/2/hILlp7csRIm0CNUgtPF"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Qh3UBUyYEnB8hUqWs4/Bi+XIYXg=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v43oks$3b46v$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 8260

On 6/9/2024 3:20 AM, Mikko wrote:
> 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.
> 

Those I my verbatim words that he agreed with and I said no such thing.

<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 words10/13/2022>

For all X > 5 | X > 3 is not restricted to 8

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer