Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.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: Anyone that disagrees with this is not telling the truth --- V5
 --- Professor Sipser
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2024 20:17:44 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 181
Message-ID: <va3f7o$3ipp3$1@dont-email.me>
References: <va104l$376ed$4@dont-email.me>
 <cd375f68f97a737988bab8c1332b7802509ff6ea@i2pn2.org>
 <va13po$376ed$7@dont-email.me>
 <d42e5d30ea5f1c067283cb04d8a7293e2117188e@i2pn2.org>
 <va24hl$3cvgv$1@dont-email.me>
 <431deaa157cdae1cae73a1b24268a61cf8ec2c1c@i2pn2.org>
 <va38qh$3ia79$1@dont-email.me>
 <7a1c569a699e79bfa146affbbae3eac7b91cd263@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2024 03:17:44 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8c59276998afcfae1d8a48e115f4f326";
	logging-data="3761955"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18Lblv05mPOFgPt/FUXnOEq"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:XmSch4XSbLd0JNE2dM+A2Opk2v8=
In-Reply-To: <7a1c569a699e79bfa146affbbae3eac7b91cd263@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 7778

On 8/20/2024 7:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 8/20/24 7:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 8/20/2024 6:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 8/20/24 9:09 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 8/19/2024 11:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 8/19/24 11:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/19/2024 10:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/19/24 10:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> *Everything that is not expressly stated below is*
>>>>>>>> *specified as unspecified*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Looks like you still have this same condition.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I thought you said you removed it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _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]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *It is a basic fact that DDD emulated by HHH according to*
>>>>>>>> *the semantics of the x86 language cannot possibly stop*
>>>>>>>> *running unless aborted* (out of memory error excluded)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But it can't emulate DDD correctly past 4 instructions, since the 
>>>>>>> 5th instruciton to emulate doesn't exist.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And, you can't include the memory that holds HHH, as you mention 
>>>>>>> HHHn below, so that changes, but DDD, so the input doesn't and 
>>>>>>> thus is CAN'T be part of the input.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> X = DDD emulated by HHH∞ according to the semantics of the x86 
>>>>>>>> language
>>>>>>>> Y = HHH∞ never aborts its emulation of DDD
>>>>>>>> Z = DDD never stops running
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The above claim boils down to this: (X ∧ Y) ↔ Z
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And neither X or Y are possible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> x86utm takes the compiled Halt7.obj file of this c program
>>>>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
>>>>>>>> Thus making all of the code of HHH directly available to
>>>>>>>> DDD and itself. HHH emulates itself emulating DDD.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which is irrelevent and a LIE as if HHHn is part of the input, 
>>>>>>> that input needs to be DDDn
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And, in fact,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since, you have just explicitly introduced that all of HHHn is 
>>>>>>> available to HHHn when it emulates its input, that DDD must 
>>>>>>> actually be DDDn as it changes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thus, your ACTUAL claim needs to be more like:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> X = DDD∞ emulated by HHH∞ according to the semantics of the x86 
>>>>>>> language
>>>>>>> Y = HHH∞ never aborts its emulation of DDD∞
>>>>>>> Z = DDD∞ never stops running
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The above claim boils down to this: (X ∧ Y) ↔ Z
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes that is correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, you only prove that the DDD∞ that calls the HHH∞ is non-halting.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not any of the other DDDn
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your problem is that for any other DDDn / HHHn, you don't have Y 
>>>>>>> so you don't have Z.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> void EEE()
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>    HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> HHHn correctly predicts the behavior of DDD the same
>>>>>>>> way that HHHn correctly predicts the behavior of EEE.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope, HHHn can form a valid inductive proof of the input.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It can't for DDDn, since when we move to HHHn+1 we no longer have 
>>>>>>> DDDn but DDDn+1, which is a different input.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You already agreed that (X ∧ Y) ↔ Z is correct.
>>>>>> Did you do an infinite trace in your mind?
>>>>>
>>>>> But only for DDD∞, not any of the other ones.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you can do it and I can do it then HHH can
>>>>>> do this same sort of thing. Computations are
>>>>>> not inherently dumber than human minds.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But HHHn isn't given DDD∞ as its input, so that doesn't matter.
>>>>>
>>>>> HHHn is given DDDn as its input,
>>>>>
>>>>> Remeber, since you said that the input to HHH includes all the 
>>>>> memory, if that differs, it is a DIFFERENT input, and needs to be 
>>>>> so marked.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are just admittig that you are just stupid and think two things 
>>>>> that are different are the same.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *attempts to use misdirection to weasel word around this are dismissed*
>>>> *attempts to use misdirection to weasel word around this are dismissed*
>>>> *attempts to use misdirection to weasel word around this are dismissed*
>>>>
>>>> <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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Right, so the decider needs top be able to show that its exact input 
>>> will not halt.
>>
>> No it cannot possibly mean that or professor Sipser
>> would not agreed to the second half:
>>
>>      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>
>>
>>
> 
> Of course it means that, because Professoer Sipser would have presumed 
> that you built the machines PROPERLY, so that you COULD think of 
> changing THIS H to be non-aborting, while the input still used the final 
> version that it always uses,
> 

A machine cannot both abort and fail to abort an input
unless it modifies its own code dynamically.

Professor Sipser would not have construed that I am referring
to self-modifying code.

This means that he must have understood that HHHn(DDD)
is predicting the behavior of HHH∞.

You continue to use the screwy reasoning that because
you are no longer hungry after you have eaten this
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========