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: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant?
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2024 08:13:59 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 155
Message-ID: <v63iqn$26loi$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v5vkun$1b0k9$1@dont-email.me> <v60dci$1ib5p$1@dont-email.me>
 <v60red$1kr1q$2@dont-email.me> <v61hn7$1oec9$1@dont-email.me>
 <v61ipa$1og2o$2@dont-email.me> <v61jod$1oec9$2@dont-email.me>
 <v61leu$1p1uo$1@dont-email.me>
 <7b6a00827bfcc84e99e19a0d0ae6028ebcdc263c@i2pn2.org>
 <v620vu$1qutj$2@dont-email.me>
 <f6e8f5de9a1e61c7970a92145ce8c1f9087ba431@i2pn2.org>
 <v628ts$1s632$1@dont-email.me> <v62vdb$23k3e$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2024 15:13:59 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="29a678b7ecb7074967021c8dcb9f1179";
	logging-data="2316050"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19uDJ/2x5w6tYcmm0s78l4y"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:LVtqhk8pxz3lMsyTaUUb4EZqCBs=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v62vdb$23k3e$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 7138

On 7/3/2024 2:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-07-03 01:18:52 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 7/2/2024 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 7/2/24 7:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 7/2/2024 5:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 7/2/24 3:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 2:17 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>> Op 02.jul.2024 om 21:00 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 1:42 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Op 02.jul.2024 om 14:22 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 3:22 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Op 02.jul.2024 om 03:25 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>> typedef void (*ptr)();
>>>>>>>>>>>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> void Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>    HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> void Infinite_Recursion()
>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>    Infinite_Recursion();
>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(Infinite_Loop);
>>>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(Infinite_Recursion);
>>>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Every C programmer that knows what an x86 emulator is knows
>>>>>>>>>>>> that when HHH emulates the machine language of Infinite_Loop,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Infinite_Recursion, and DDD that it must abort these emulations
>>>>>>>>>>>> so that itself can terminate normally.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Whether or not it *must* abort is not very relevant.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This <is> the problem that I am willing to discuss.
>>>>>>>>>> I am unwilling to discuss any other problem.
>>>>>>>>>> This does meet the Sipser approved criteria.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <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>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Repeating the same thing that has already been proved to be 
>>>>>>>>> irrelevant does not bring the discussion any further.
>>>>>>>>> Sipser is not relevant, because that is about a correct 
>>>>>>>>> simulation. Your simulation is not correct.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you disagree with this you are either dishonest
>>>>>>>> or clueless I no longer care which one.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _DDD()
>>>>>>>> [00002172] 55               push ebp      ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>> [00002173] 8bec             mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>> [00002175] 6872210000       push 00002172 ; push DDD
>>>>>>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff       call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
>>>>>>>> [0000217f] 83c404           add esp,+04
>>>>>>>> [00002182] 5d               pop ebp
>>>>>>>> [00002183] c3               ret
>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> DDD is correctly emulated by HHH which calls an
>>>>>>>> emulated HHH(DDD) to repeat the process until aborted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> HHH repeats the process twice and aborts too soon.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are freaking thinking too damn narrow minded.
>>>>>> DDD is correctly emulated by any HHH that can exist
>>>>>> which calls this emulated HHH(DDD) to repeat the process
>>>>>> until aborted (which may be never).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Only if your definiton of "Correct" includes things that are not 
>>>>> correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your problem is you just assume things to exist that don't, because 
>>>>> you don't understand what Truth actually means.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So, where is that Diagonalization proof you said you had to show 
>>> Godel wrong?
>>>
>>> Or are you just admitting you LIED about that?
>>>
>>>> void DDD()
>>>> {
>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> int main()
>>>> {
>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> <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>
>>>>
>>>> *Professor Sipser would agree that HHH/DDD meets the above criteria*
>>>>
>>> Nope.
>>>
>>> Your HHH that returns an answer does NOT "Correctly Simulate" its 
>>> input by the definition of producing the exact results of executing 
>>> the machine represented by it,
>>
>> I can see what you fail to understand. Professor Sipser would
>> not make this same mistake.
>>
>> Professor Sipser probably does understand the x86 language.
> 
> What makes you think so? How can you justify "probably" instead of, say,
> "pssobly"?
> 
> The following contains nothing relevant:
> 
>> Shared-memory implementation of the Karp-Sipser
>> kernelization process
>> https://inria.hal.science/hal-03404798/file/hipc2021.pdf
> 
> 

If you make sure to not pay attention than you you
won't find anything relevant. I searched for ["sipser" "x86"]

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