| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v46i8h$bkv8$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 12:50:09 +0300 Organization: - Lines: 139 Message-ID: <v46i8h$bkv8$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> <v43oks$3b46v$1@dont-email.me> <v44c4g$3harn$3@dont-email.me> <v44guk$3jd77$1@dont-email.me> <v44kjv$3jnc8$7@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 11:50:09 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ab4f0d8fc3c6ed4bcd3e4b8455e50f69"; logging-data="381928"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/j798wTJQsfomEmB9FpQ1+" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:aLRjb1uzhfEw+YuJtX1WzdZ8Hus= Bytes: 8141 On 2024-06-09 16:18:06 +0000, olcott said: > On 6/9/2024 10:15 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2024-06-09 13:53:20 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> 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. >> >> What did you not say? >> > > AGREEMENT DOES EXTEND TO SUBSTITUTIONS OTHERWISE > X > 5 proves that X > 3 only applies when X is 8 I never said or even thought that you said that. I only pointetd out that Sipser said the opposite. -- Mikko