| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v6i5vu$17hpj$2@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!npeer.as286.net!npeer-ng0.as286.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 (typo corrected) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2024 21:06:53 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 112 Message-ID: <v6i5vu$17hpj$2@dont-email.me> References: <v6e7va$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> <v6i3fg$13ejf$1@dont-email.me> <9b2d4259e78220028f0494f2e2aba382a3402f21@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 04:06:55 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b5da22ad5ca0d0ccd5a9478202582a44"; logging-data="1296179"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/QNcl0qC9nmFDmCU/Rz61N" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:Y1bplOjJIAy/MhQrXubscgQNJ7g= In-Reply-To: <9b2d4259e78220028f0494f2e2aba382a3402f21@i2pn2.org> Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 6310 On 7/8/2024 9:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 7/8/24 9:23 PM, olcott wrote: >> 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 >>> >>>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> No, HE understand that HHH to be a halt decider MUST correctly report >>> that DDD will stop running since HHH(DDD) returns. >>> >>> YOU are the one that doesn't understand the problem. >>> >>>> >>>> When you need groceries you cannot say that you >>>> don't need groceries until AFTER you get more groceries. >>>> >>> >>> Which is just Red Herring, as I am not a program, and the program is >>> not me. >>> >>> Something you don't understand, maybe because you sold your free will >>> and got a deterministic program instead. >> >> *Free will does not make lies into truth* >> >> If HHH reports that it does not need to abort >> DDD before it aborts DDD then HHH is a liar. > > No, It COULD report that it has determined that it doesn't NEED to abort > its simulation, but does so anyway. Says someone that acts as if lies are true. If HHH reports that it didn't need to abort then HHH lies. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer