Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Who here understands that the last paragraph is Necessarily true?
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2024 09:49:28 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 173
Message-ID: <v7gipo$3iu15$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v6un9t$3nufp$1@dont-email.me> <v7013v$2ccv$1@dont-email.me>
 <v70nt7$61d8$6@dont-email.me> <v72m95$kbi2$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7381u$mjis$13@dont-email.me> <v75b72$16i0h$1@dont-email.me>
 <v75vip$19j7l$6@dont-email.me> <v77t2s$1o9jb$1@dont-email.me>
 <v78h0v$1rc43$8@dont-email.me> <v7daci$2tu7n$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7du7r$30pvh$9@dont-email.me> <v7g030$3fpr9$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2024 16:49:29 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c302f5257903c7c25aa8d1f6976e7879";
	logging-data="3766309"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18p+T5pkVaqM3SKWJ7ZT7jS"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:EJgM03W5KUjn7ouNiL7bgJHJ5Hg=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v7g030$3fpr9$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 7718

On 7/20/2024 4:30 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-07-19 14:46:19 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 7/19/2024 4:07 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-07-17 13:30:07 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 7/17/2024 2:49 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-07-16 14:20:09 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 7/16/2024 3:32 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-07-15 13:26:22 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 7/15/2024 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-07-14 14:38:31 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/14/2024 3:09 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-07-13 20:15:56 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> typedef void (*ptr)();
>>>>>>>>>>>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> void Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>    HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> void Infinite_Recursion()
>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>    Infinite_Recursion();
>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(Infinite_Loop);
>>>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(Infinite_Recursion);
>>>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Any input that must be aborted to prevent the non
>>>>>>>>>>>> termination of HHH necessarily specifies non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior or it would never need to be aborted.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Everyone understands that DDD specifies a halting behaviour 
>>>>>>>>>>> if HHH(DDD) does,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *You can comprehend this is a truism or fail to*
>>>>>>>>>> *comprehend it disagreement is necessarily incorrect*
>>>>>>>>>> Any input that must be aborted to prevent the non
>>>>>>>>>> termination of HHH necessarily specifies non-halting
>>>>>>>>>> behavior or it would never need to be aborted.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Disagreeing with the above is analogous to disagreeing
>>>>>>>>>> with arithmetic.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That the input is aborted does not mean that the input must be 
>>>>>>>>> aborted.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Weasel words. This is an axiom:
>>>>>>>> Input XXX must be aborted to prevent the non-termination of HHH.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is not an acceptable axiom. That you are unable to prove that
>>>>>>> either XXX is aborted or HHH does not terminate is insufficient
>>>>>>> reason to call it an axiom.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Premise* (assumed to be true)
>>>>>> Any input that must be aborted to prevent
>>>>>> the non termination of HHH
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Logically entailed by the above premise*
>>>>>> necessarily specifies non-halting behavior or
>>>>>> it would never need to be aborted.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it is not. Both "need to be" and "must be" are different from 
>>>>> "is".
>>>>> The correct asxiom is "If the program can be executed to its 
>>>>> halting in
>>>>> a finite time then the program specifies a halting behaviour."
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From the fact that XXX must be aborted we can conclude that XXX 
>>>>>>>> must be aborted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nothing that contains the word "must" is a fact.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When simulated input X stops running {if and only if}
>>>>>> the simulation of this input X has been aborted this
>>>>>> necessitates that input X specifies non-halting behavior.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing that contains the word "necessitates" is a fact, either.
>>>>> Perhaps you should learn some philosophy.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <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>
>>>>
>>>> _DDD()
>>>> [00002163] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
>>>> [00002164] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
>>>> [00002166] 6863210000 push 00002163 ; push DDD
>>>> [0000216b] e853f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DDD)
>>>> [00002170] 83c404     add esp,+04
>>>> [00002173] 5d         pop ebp
>>>> [00002174] c3         ret
>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002174]
>>>>
>>>> DDD emulated by HHH according to the semantic meaning of
>>>> its x86 instructions never stops running unless aborted.
>>>
>>> That Professor Sipser does not express any agreement with anything
>>> about the syntax of facts is not relevant to our (or any) discussion
>>> about syntax of facts.
>>>
>>
>> void DDD()
>> {
>>    HHH(DDD);
>> }
>>
>> int main()
>> {
>>    DDD();
>> }
>>
>> <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>
>>
>> int main { DDD(); } calls HHH(DDD) that must abort the
>> emulation of its input or HHH, emulated DDD and executed DDD
>> never stop running.
> 
> If HHH can detect that a part of the code to be emulated ie HHH itself it
> may skip the emulation of itself and continue from the return. The 
> knowledge
> that HHH always terminates can be coded in HHH. Therefore the abortion is
> not necessary.
> 

In other words you are suggesting that HHH lies and
makes pretend that recursive emulation does not exist.

_DDD()
[00002163] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002164] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002166] 6863210000 push 00002163 ; push DDD
[0000216b] e853f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DDD)
[00002170] 83c404     add esp,+04
[00002173] 5d         pop ebp
[00002174] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002174]

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