Path: ...!news.mixmin.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,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Sequence of sequence, selection and iteration matters
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2024 10:10:00 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 57
Message-ID: <v6jjs8$1ctoi$12@dont-email.me>
References: <v6e7va$c4sv$1@dont-email.me>
 <67e5d0e921d2806ed5b30ed4432ea124d9e5e28f@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 17:10:01 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b5da22ad5ca0d0ccd5a9478202582a44";
	logging-data="1472274"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+rquszNIyLwFEbJDZYCry5"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:9Q3VOw6Tz5f/rIJCO9zBSN6kVoE=
In-Reply-To: <67e5d0e921d2806ed5b30ed4432ea124d9e5e28f@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3759

On 7/7/2024 12:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 7/7/24 10:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>> _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.
> No, you don;t understand the difference between the partial simulation 
> of DDD done by HHH from the actual behavior of DDD.
> 
> Since HHH is a pure function, then if HHH returns to main, it will also 
> return to DDD, so HHH can NOT POSSIBLE correctly determine that DDD will 
> not halt if HHH eventually will return an answer. PERIOD.
> 
> YOU LOGIC IS JUST INCORRECT.
> 
> 
>>
>> <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>
> 
> Remember, and you keep on ignoring this fact, to the point it has become 
> a LIE, that Professor Sipser, like most people in the field define that 
> a "Correct Simulation" is a simulation is a simulaition that exactly 
> reproduces the behavior of the program represented by the input, and 
> thus, is a simulator that never stops simulating until it reaches a 
> final state.

You are making this same mistake and thus ignoring sequence
of sequence, selection and iteration:

*I have never explained this issue to Ben this clearly before*
Ben seems to believe that HHH must report that it need not
abort its emulation of DDD because AFTER HHH has already
aborted this emulation DDD does not need to be aborted.

That *is* exactly analogous to you saying that you don't need
groceries when you do need groceries before 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