Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <abc@def.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly
 reach its own return instruction final state?
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2024 16:31:08 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 200
Message-ID: <v8u4ms$1ro46$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v8jh7m$30k55$1@dont-email.me>
 <735401a612caec3eedb531311fd1e09b3d94521d@i2pn2.org>
 <v8lkdb$3h16a$1@dont-email.me>
 <5ee8b34a57f12b0630509183ffbd7c07804634b3@i2pn2.org>
 <v8ll4v$3h8m2$1@dont-email.me>
 <cbde765b8f9e769930b6c8589556907a41d9c256@i2pn2.org>
 <v8lm80$3h8m2$3@dont-email.me> <v8n6mq$3tv07$3@dont-email.me>
 <v8o14v$30uf$1@dont-email.me>
 <950d4eed7965040e841a970d48d5b6f417ff43dc@i2pn2.org>
 <v8oj1n$6kik$3@dont-email.me> <v8pvke$ih0a$1@dont-email.me>
 <4-qdnbdw1JzlRS37nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <dca317e236dd975a3f030ae92ea0aa343833f029@i2pn2.org>
 <v8rpgd$15pid$1@dont-email.me>
 <ad3a7354ca32b7b9adb23db743347f3f12aaec63@i2pn2.org>
 <v8s1im$1b6r5$1@dont-email.me>
 <5VKdndWBS-oqCSz7nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <v8s4rc$1bo1b$1@dont-email.me>
 <M1mdnT4RJLmH1S_7nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <v8tic8$1m8fm$1@dont-email.me>
 <SRKdnVDSxeZIzS_7nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <v8tju9$1m8fm$2@dont-email.me>
 <G8OcnRHRR7_LDy_7nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2024 23:31:09 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="198d92f6295c39b86c65eb128f10a699";
	logging-data="1958022"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18ttHUyvzCRwZc/Uw4oVb22"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:T6FtCFNGVkpDsMvs7HZhhUzWXRE=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <G8OcnRHRR7_LDy_7nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
Bytes: 10221

On 8/6/2024 4:15 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 06/08/2024 17:44, olcott wrote:
>> On 8/6/2024 11:35 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>> On 06/08/2024 17:18, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 8/6/2024 10:58 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>> On 06/08/2024 04:21, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/5/2024 10:12 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>> On 06/08/2024 03:25, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/5/2024 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 8/5/24 8:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/5/2024 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/5/24 9:49 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/5/2024 2:39 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-08-04 18:59:03 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/4/2024 1:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/4/24 9:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/4/2024 1:22 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 03.aug.2024 om 18:35 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>> ∞ instructions of DDD correctly emulated by HHH[∞] 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach their own "return" instruction final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you are saying that the infinite one does?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dreaming again of HHH that does not abort? Dreams are 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no substitute for facts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The HHH that aborts and halts, halts. A tautology.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is the right answer to the wrong question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am asking whether or not DDD emulated by HHH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaches its "return" instruction.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But the "DDD emulated by HHH" is the program DDD above,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When I say DDD emulated by HHH I mean at any level of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emulation and not and direct execution.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you mean anything other than what the words mean you wihout
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a definition in the beginning of the same message then it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not reasonable to expect anyone to understand what you mean.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead people may think that you mean what you say or that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you don't know what you are saying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If you don't understand what the word "emulate" means look 
>>>>>>>>>>>> it up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> DDD (above) cannot possibly reach its own "return" 
>>>>>>>>>>>> instruction halt
>>>>>>>>>>>> state when its machine code is correctly emulated by HHH.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Only because an HHH that does so never returns to anybody.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Do you really not understand that recursive emulation <is>
>>>>>>>>>> isomorphic to infinite recursion?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not when the emulation is conditional.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Infinite_Recursion() meets the exact same condition that DDD
>>>>>>>> emulated by HHH makes and you know this. Since you are so
>>>>>>>> persistently trying to get away contradicting the semantics
>>>>>>>> of the x86 language the time is coming where there is zero
>>>>>>>> doubt that this is an honest mistake.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ben does correctly understand that the first half of the Sipser
>>>>>>>> approved criteria is met. Even Mike finally admitted this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't recall doing that.  Please provide a reference for this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/2/2024 8:19 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>  > It's easy enough to say "PO has his own criterion for
>>>>>>  > halting, which is materially different from the HP condition,
>>>>>>  > and so we all agree PO is correct by his own criterion...
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That is not agreeing that the first half of the Sipser approved 
>>>>> criteria is met. 
>>>>
>>>> That <is> my own criterion. Whatever else could you mean?
>>>> Do you still disagree with Ben on this point?
>>>
>>> I do not agree that the first half of Sipser's quote has been 
>>> satisfied by your scenario.  You have misunderstood/misapplied what 
>>> Sipser agreed to.
>>>
>>>
>>> Mike.
>>>
>>
>> So you think that Ben is wrong?
> 
> Why is it important to you whether I think Ben is wrong?  I have said 
> that I disagree with you that your HHH/DDD scenario satisfies the Sipser 
> criterion.
> 
I am trying to judge whether your disagreement is honest
or dishonest. If you don't explain your basis then this
seems to indicate that you have no actual basis.

> That disagreement is based on what I believe Sipser was agreeing to.  

You didn't even say that that is.

> You have misunderstood/misapplied that agreement.  I don't know what Ben 
> thinks Sipser was saying, or whether that's even a relevant factor for 
> what Ben said.
> 
> Ben's statement appears to be based on something else - that you have 
> some new criterion for "PO-halting", and that if we translate Sipser's 
> quote to a statement about PO-halting and PO-halt deciders, then / 
> interpreted like that/ he believes the criterion is, or may well be, met.
> 

Nothing like that. it is not at all any vague unspecified thing.
*Ben agreed this this exact criteria has been met*

<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

> Since I don't believe that you have any such coherent definition of PO- 
> halting, 

That I keep repeating is over-and-over and you never see it
seems a little too disingenuous to be called disingenuous.

> I cannot interpret Sipser's statement that way.  And if I was 
> convinced you /did/ have such a coherent definition, I would /still/ 
> believe that Sipser was referring to conventional halt deciders, and 
> that therefore his criterion is not met by your HHH/DDD.
> 

It helps Richard when I repeat the same sentence hundreds of
times in the same post because he said he has attention deficit
disorder.

Would it help you if I repeated this 100 times in the same post?
<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

> If you think Ben is supporting your broader claim of some problem with 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========