Path: ...!feeder1.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweak.nl!217.73.144.44.MISMATCH!feeder.ecngs.de!ecngs!feeder2.ecngs.de!168.119.53.7.MISMATCH!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 19:21:16 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 78
Message-ID: <v6hvps$12ktu$3@dont-email.me>
References: <v6e7va$c4sv$1@dont-email.me> <v6g444$pdc2$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6go4d$sg7f$1@dont-email.me>
 <80ebfd233bf599468126ddf048190bd0799605bd@i2pn2.org>
 <v6htmc$12ktu$1@dont-email.me>
 <dcd1b46e5442c8a532a33873f396b9cb9b0688a5@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 02:21:17 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b5da22ad5ca0d0ccd5a9478202582a44";
	logging-data="1135550"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/3GB8tzZbffNoF5QSUhOCf"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Fd8GjB3wJUaU+o5q0KSQV0WDLxc=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <dcd1b46e5442c8a532a33873f396b9cb9b0688a5@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 4857

On 7/8/2024 6:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 7/8/24 7:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>> 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>
> 
> Which you H doesn't meet, since the definition of "Correct Simulation" 
> here (as for most people) is a simulation that exactly reproduces the 
> behavior of the full program the input represents, which means a 
> simulaiton that doesn't abort.
> 
> Since your H doesn't do that, or correctly determine what one of those 
> would do (since it would halt since you H returns 0) so you CAN'T 
> correctly predict that which doesn't happen.
> 
>>
>> *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*
> 
> No, he agress that your H, which is NOT a Halt Decider, is correctly 
> answering your non-halt-deciding question.  In other words, it is a 
> correct POOP decide.r
> 

It is literally true that Ben agrees that the "if" statement
has been met.

Ben disagrees with the second part because Ben fails to understand
that HHH cannot correctly report that DDD would stop running until
after HHH forces DDD to stop running.

When you need groceries you cannot say that you
don't need groceries until AFTER 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