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: Sequence of sequence, selection and iteration matters --- Ben
 proves that he agrees to my meanings
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2024 23:22:15 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 159
Message-ID: <v6idto$185d2$3@dont-email.me>
References: <v6e7va$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>
 <v6hvps$12ktu$3@dont-email.me>
 <cf764821d8b9b08443fc6cd3d285bc0567f31fa6@i2pn2.org>
 <v6i1b9$12ktu$5@dont-email.me>
 <ba7198db7494167881efe8d1afa1600b41342c95@i2pn2.org>
 <v6i487$13ejf$3@dont-email.me>
 <77a477b609ed9fc2184aded539ebd054dfec51de@i2pn2.org>
 <v6i5lr$13ejf$6@dont-email.me>
 <69c20ccdb6a56df2351095d5e74338bb3bc01dab@i2pn2.org>
 <v6i824$17hpj$4@dont-email.me>
 <fb3c5fcfc52f965684fe5e2f5b34a299bb35681b@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 06:22:16 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b5da22ad5ca0d0ccd5a9478202582a44";
	logging-data="1316258"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+fXhs6fKZCYM5XCDrEQ/ya"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:70TCveU09hzW8VHNT4HNGJMOpNg=
In-Reply-To: <fb3c5fcfc52f965684fe5e2f5b34a299bb35681b@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 8414

On 7/8/2024 9:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 7/8/24 10:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/8/2024 9:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 7/8/24 10:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 7/8/2024 8:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 7/8/24 9:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/8/2024 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/8/24 8:47 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
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, Ben agrees that 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *That the verbatim words of the If statement are fulfilled*
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In other words, you think changing meaning of words in a statement 
>>>>> is valid logic, but it is actually one form of LIE.
>>>>
>>>> Ben agrees:
>>>> *That the verbatim words of the If statement are fulfilled*
>>>>
>>>
>>> But with difffent meaning of the words, so you LIE.
>>
>> Ben proved that agreed that my meanings of my words were
>> fulfilled by paraphrasing my words into his own words.
>>
>> On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>  > But H determines (correctly) that D would not halt if
>>  > it were not halted.  That much is a truism.
>>
>> Ben only disagreed that my meanings of my words entail
>> the second part.
> 
> No, Ben agreed that with YOUR definiton of the words, which are 
> diffferent than profressor Sipser, you can show that your POOP problem 
> is correctly solved for P by H.
> 
> You are INCORRECT about Professor Sipser;s meaning, and thus about Halting.
> 
>>
>> Ben felt that HHH could say that it didn't need to
>> abort DDD because AFTER it does abort DDD it doesn't
>> need to abort DDD.
>>
>> SEQUENCE MATTERS !!!
>> SEQUENCE CANNOT BE CORRECTLY IGNORED !!!
>>
> 
> TRUTH MATTERS.
> 
> The problem is the thing we are talking about, the behavior of DDD isn't 
> determined by the simulation HHH does of it, but what HHH does with its 
> simulation. If HHH returns, then so does DDD, even if HHH doesn't see it.

The behavior of DDD is determined by its machine code.

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