Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Sequence of sequence, selection and iteration matters --- Ben agrees
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2024 10:27:15 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 86
Message-ID: <v6ld4j$1qkql$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v6e7va$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> <v6il9g$19ifg$1@dont-email.me> <v6jh7l$1ctoi$6@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2024 09:27:16 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2cd9eca14ec5ad66c5912bcb5c796241";
	logging-data="1921877"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+QQtL76qPgDNXzTwUdzlj3"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:4KIUW7cZGoh1OPLvy0hqUbT9PqU=
Bytes: 4805

On 2024-07-09 14:24:52 +0000, olcott said:

> On 7/9/2024 1:28 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-07-08 23:45:16 +0000, olcott said:
>> 
>>> 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>
>>> 
>>> *Ben agrees that the "if" statement has been met*
>> 
>> How is that relevant? Even if he did, you can't prove that he was not
>> mistaken. If you could. you wouldn't need to mention him.
>> 
>>> *Ben agrees that the "if" statement has been met*
>>> *Ben agrees that the "if" statement has been met*
>>> 
>>> 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.
>>> 
>>> *Ben fails to understand this*
>>> If HHH reported that it did not need to abort DDD
>>> before it aborted DDD then HHH would be lying.
>> 
>> If he fails to understand one thing you should not assume that
>> he does understand another thing.
> 
> Ben proves that he agrees that the If part of the Professor
> Sipser approved criteria has been met when he paraphrases
> this 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.

That does not express any agreement about anything.

And anyway, an agreement by an untrusted person would not mean anything.

-- 
Mikko