Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts?
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2024 10:16:18 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 203
Message-ID: <v56ps2$3q4ea$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v56n8h$3pr25$1@dont-email.me> <v56ntj$onl3$7@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2024 17:16:19 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="52f855e26d0a069f32049d753a1d455d";
	logging-data="4002250"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/bZsorpPARGaY19TZmEkt6"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ym55HCQ2ydAvhzvEk3QcYfbi68A=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v56ntj$onl3$7@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 8652

On 6/22/2024 9:42 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/22/24 10:31 AM, olcott wrote:
>> https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-Michael-Sipser/dp/113318779X/
>>
>> To understand this analysis requires a sufficient knowledge of
>> the C programming language and what an x86 emulator does. HHH0
>> and HHH1 have this criteria as their algorithm:
> 
> Which you just showed you don't have, since on comp.lang.c++ you thought 
> that
> 
> x *= ++f * ++f;
> 
> had defined behavior for primative types for f.
> 
>>
>> <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>
> 
> Which used the definition of "Correct Simulation" to mean a simulation 
> that produces the EXACT results of the direct execution of the machine 
> being simulated, which requires a simulation that will not "abort" its 
> simulation, EVER (except by reaching a final state).
> 

I have had enough of your deception trying to get away
with denying the semantics of the x86 programming language.
I really hope that you don't get condemned to Hell over this.

> You Deciders do not do this, nor do they do this about an actual Correct 
> Simulation per that definition of the input, so they can not use the 
> second clause.
> 
>>
>> On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>  > I don't think that is the shell game. PO really /has/ an H
>>  > (it's trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines
>>  > that P(P) *would* never stop running *unless* aborted.
>>  >
>>
>> Ben only agrees that the criteria is met for the input. He
>> does not agree that the criteria has been meet for non-inputs.
> 
> Ben only agrees that H correctly decides the exact criteria that you 
> state, that no H can "correctly simuate" (per YOUR definition) the input 
> to a final state. 

And you happily deny the verified facts at the possible cost
of damnation in Hell.

> Thus, he is agreeing that you H is a POOP decider, for 
> this input, but not that it is a HALTING decider for this input, since 
> its criteria is not the Halting Criteria.
> 
>>
>> Computable functions are the formalized analogue of the intuitive
>> notion of algorithms, in the sense that a function is computable if 
>> there exists an algorithm that can do the job of the function, i.e. 
>> *given an input of the function domain*
>> *it can return the corresponding output*
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function
>>
>> *That seems to say that non-inputs do not count*
> 
> But we aren't talking about "Non-Inputs", 

The D(D) that calls H(D,D) such that this call returns has
provably different behavior than D correctly simulated by H
is measured by the actual semantics of the x86 programming
language.

How the Hell does anyone feel that they can get away with
flatly contradicting the semantics of the x86 programming
language?

We are a herd and our first duty it to follow the herd
even if the herd leaps off a cliff.

> and in fact, YOUR arguement 
> needs to look at the non-inputs, as it allows the input to change when 
> you argue about other deciders.
> 
int sum(int x, int y){ return x + y; }
In other words sum(3,4) must consider the sum of 5 + 6?

> The input is the finite string.
> 
> The MEANING of that finite string is defined by the PROBLEM.

LIAR. You know that the meaning of the finite string
is defined by the semantics of the x86 language.

I might start wishing that you get a tiny taste of Hell
to set you on the correct path.

As Christ said as ye judge ye shall be judged so I do
wish the same thing upon myself. If I am on the wrong
path then I sincerely wish for the minimum adversity
required to definitely set me on the right path.

>  The decider 
> gets to define the encoding, but not the meaning/behavior of the encoded 
> items.
> 

When the x86 language is specified then the decider
has zero leeway in this.

> Halting DEFINES the meaning/behavior to be that of the directly run 
> program represented by the input.

That makes it contradict one of its own axioms, thus
conclusively proving that it is incorrect:

Computable functions are the formalized analogue of the
intuitive notion of algorithms, in the sense that a
function is computable if there exists an algorithm
that can do the job of the function, i.e.
*given an input of the function domain it*
*can return the corresponding output*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function

>>
>> *Here is the verified facts that everyone denies*
>> *Here is the verified facts that everyone denies*
>> *Here is the verified facts that everyone denies*
>> *Here is the verified facts that everyone denies*
>>
>> void DDD()
>> {
>>    HHH0(DDD);
>> }
>>
>> int main()
>> {
>>    Output("Input_Halts = ", HHH0(DDD));
>>    Output("Input_Halts = ", HHH1(DDD));
>> }
>>
>> It is a verified fact that the behavior that finite string DDD
>> presents to HH0 is that when DDD correctly emulated by HH0
>> calls HH0(DDD) that *THIS CALL DOES NOT RETURN*
>>
>> It is a verified fact that the behavior that finite string DDD
>> presents to HH1 is that when DDD correctly emulated by HH1
>> calls HH0(DDD) that *THIS CALL DOES RETURN*
>>
>>
> 
> 
> The problem is that the "behavior" that the finite string DDD presents 
> to HH0, is DEFINED by the problem. 

LIAR. It is defined by the semantics of the x86 language.

> And if that problem is the Halting 
> Problem, that behavior is the behavior of the machine the input 
> represents. If HH0 treats the input as having a different behavior, then 
> HH0 just isn't a Halting Decider, but something else.
> 
> If HH0 is supposed to be a Halting decider, but uses a method that makes 
> it see something other than that behavior, then it is just an incorrect 
> Halting Decider, and its algorithm just creates an incorrect recreation 
> of the property of the input it is supposed to be working on.
> 
> 
> A bit of a side note, the actual "Input" to HH0, is a pointer to memory, 
> and as such it passes a reference to ALL of memory considering the 
> starting point to be that address, so your "Input" isn't actually the 
> few bytes of DDD, but ALL of memory and a starting point. If you 
> actually mean that the input is just those few bytes pointed to by the 
> address, then the input is improperly formed and is NOT a proper 
> representation of the input machine, becuase it is incomplete.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========