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,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Sequence of sequence, selection and iteration matters --- Ben
 agrees
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2024 18:45:16 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 65
Message-ID: <v6htmc$12ktu$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v6e7va$c4sv$1@dont-email.me> <v6g444$pdc2$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6go4d$sg7f$1@dont-email.me>
 <80ebfd233bf599468126ddf048190bd0799605bd@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2024 01:45:16 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b5da22ad5ca0d0ccd5a9478202582a44";
	logging-data="1135550"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18m3x7ZkYdj0avwSTikDgy6"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:SvKe/t4qU5RNfeKne9g+q8ZVPgQ=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <80ebfd233bf599468126ddf048190bd0799605bd@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 3932

On 7/8/2024 6:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 7/8/24 9:04 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/8/2024 2:22 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-07-07 14:16:10 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> _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]
>>>>
>>>> Sufficient knowledge of the x86 language conclusively proves
>>>> that the call from DDD correctly emulated by HHH to HHH(DDD)
>>>> cannot possibly return for any pure function HHH.
>>>
>>> Suffifcient knowledge of the x86 language makes obvious that
>>> DDD returns if and only if HHH returns.
>>>
>>
>> That is insufficient knowledge. Sufficient knowledge proves that
>> DDD correctly simulated by HHH meets this criteria.
> 
> Nope, YOU have the insufficent knowledge, since you don't understand 
> that the x86 language says programs are deterministic, and their 
> behavior is fully establish when they are written, and running or 
> simulating them is only a way to observe that behavior, and the only 
> CORRECT observation of all the behavior, so letting that operation reach 
> its final state.
> 

<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>

*Ben agrees that the "if" statement has been met*
*Ben agrees that the "if" statement has been met*
*Ben agrees that the "if" statement has been met*

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.

*Ben fails to understand this*
If HHH reported that it did not need to abort DDD
before it aborted DDD then HHH would be lying.



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