Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts?
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2024 11:29:38 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v56ql2$onl3$9@i2pn2.org>
References: <v56n8h$3pr25$1@dont-email.me> <v56ntj$onl3$7@i2pn2.org>
 <v56ps2$3q4ea$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2024 15:29:38 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="810659"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v56ps2$3q4ea$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 9709
Lines: 236

On 6/22/24 11:16 AM, olcott wrote:
> 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.

And what in the actual detail of the x86 programming language says 
something diffferent than what I say?

I think YOU are the one in danger, as you LIE about what the x86 
assembly code says,

> 
>> 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.

Right, by what the DIRECT EXECUTION of that set of instruction will do.

Which means, for your input, in needs the instuctions of the decider it 
calls.

> 
> 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.

So, what in the x86 language shows what you claim?

> 
>> 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

Who says Halting is a Computable Function?

THAT is part of your problem.

The question actually is, "IS Halting Computable?"

> 
>>>
>>> *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*
>>>
>>>
>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========