Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!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 19:47:37 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 91
Message-ID: <v6i1b9$12ktu$5@dont-email.me>
References: <v6e7va$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>
 <v6hvps$12ktu$3@dont-email.me>
 <cf764821d8b9b08443fc6cd3d285bc0567f31fa6@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 02:47:37 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b5da22ad5ca0d0ccd5a9478202582a44";
	logging-data="1135550"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19IzZ4rDKs6N23Uq9+ZWhcv"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:OD/8DMYAZWHtrhmoj5GWiikJCHI=
In-Reply-To: <cf764821d8b9b08443fc6cd3d285bc0567f31fa6@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5272

On 7/8/2024 7:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 7/8/24 8:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Same words, but different meanings.
> 
> SO, NO
> 

He literally agrees with MY meanings that the "if" has
been fulfilled.

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.



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