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: Liar detector: Fred, Richard, Joes and Alan --- Ben's agreement
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2024 10:24:09 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 74
Message-ID: <v6h0ap$tusl$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v644pn$29t4h$3@dont-email.me> <v64e92$2bvgc$1@dont-email.me>
 <v65juc$2lui5$2@dont-email.me> <v665c9$2oun1$4@dont-email.me>
 <v66t0p$2n56v$1@dont-email.me> <v66t7p$2srk8$1@dont-email.me>
 <v66tql$2n56v$3@dont-email.me> <v66u56$2suut$1@dont-email.me>
 <v66v8i$2n56v$4@dont-email.me> <v67028$2t9el$1@dont-email.me>
 <v68b3f$2n56v$5@dont-email.me> <v68ocd$39dkv$5@dont-email.me>
 <v68pfo$2n56v$7@dont-email.me> <v68rnv$39tml$2@dont-email.me>
 <v68tvd$3ac9t$1@dont-email.me> <v68uj0$3ahel$1@dont-email.me>
 <v694k4$3bevk$1@dont-email.me> <v69502$3bh3f$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6b1k4$3odj5$1@dont-email.me> <v6bf7r$3qiio$2@dont-email.me>
 <v6bm5v$3rj8n$1@dont-email.me> <v6bmoe$3ri0l$2@dont-email.me>
 <v6bnt2$3rj8n$3@dont-email.me> <v6brfj$3skuk$2@dont-email.me>
 <v6c3vh$3ttem$1@dont-email.me> <v6c539$3u2mj$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6dda0$7s8u$1@dont-email.me> <v6e67v$bbcb$4@dont-email.me>
 <v6gss2$t87a$1@dont-email.me> <v6gv65$to0m$1@dont-email.me>
 <6dc1845ddaf0e8145d02ff73dfbe3507fe389d58@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2024 17:24:09 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8e9286d680ce7523efb7696bf75a6d8f";
	logging-data="981909"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX180G6HB4lOtiG9Y5Pl3sqIV"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:L42SVmHPau/hHNlkCJdX5Kuc9so=
In-Reply-To: <6dc1845ddaf0e8145d02ff73dfbe3507fe389d58@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4953

On 7/8/2024 10:08 AM, joes wrote:
> Am Mon, 08 Jul 2024 10:04:37 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>> On 7/8/2024 9:25 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 07.jul.2024 om 15:46 schreef olcott:
>>>>
>>>> Correctly is measured by the semantics of the x86 language.
>>>> This specifies that when DDD is correctly simulated by HHH calls
>>>> emulated HHH(DDD) that this call cannot return.
>>> Yes. This shows that the simulation is incorrect.
> 
>>> Similarly, HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly, no matter how
>>> much you want it to be correct,
>> Where correct is understood to be what-ever-the-Hell that the machine
>> code of DDD specifies within the semantics of the x86 language then:
> 

_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]

>> When DDD is correctly simulated by any pure function x86 emulator HHH
>> that aborts its emulation at some point calls HHH(DDD) then it is
>> correctly understood that this call cannot possibly return.

> An aborted simulation is not correct.
> 

It turns out the the #1 best selling author of theory of computation 
textbooks is not wrong when he agreed with my verbatim words.

https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-Michael-Sipser/dp/113318779X 


<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>

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.
....
 > But H determines (correctly) that D would not halt if it were not
 > halted.  That much is a truism.

*Proves that Ben agreed that the criteria has been met*
>> Correct is certainly not screwball misconceptions that contradict the
>> above.
> 

Ben failed to understand that professor Sipser was correct
about what meeting the criteria entails.

Ben thought that H must report on the behavior of D after
H aborts its simulation before it aborts this simulation.

This is analogous to needing groceries and saying that you
do not need groceries before you get more groceries.

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