Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!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: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 07:39:09 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 167
Message-ID: <v6655d$2oun1$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>
 <v63iqn$26loi$2@dont-email.me> <v65fg3$2l9eg$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2024 14:39:10 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8ec8ab09a9c087279b96ae2505557d8c";
	logging-data="2915041"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18z+xwuX/+7oIRBhNCe9AKS"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:14UhWLln7bTTo6NWA+v5EhZ2weI=
In-Reply-To: <v65fg3$2l9eg$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 7822

On 7/4/2024 1:29 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-07-03 13:13:59 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> 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"]
> 
> Finding that you present claims without support is relevant enough for me.
> 

Knowledge of the x86 language is 100% complete support.

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