Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<va948a$prj5$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: V5 --- Professor Sipser Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2024 23:47:06 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 173 Message-ID: <va948a$prj5$1@dont-email.me> References: <va104l$376ed$4@dont-email.me> <va3lai$3nd5c$2@dont-email.me> <va46sd$3pr24$1@dont-email.me> <va4mle$3s0hu$1@dont-email.me> <5591ff08ed8f7b4bdf33813681e156b775efe0ec@i2pn2.org> <va63uu$2fo9$1@dont-email.me> <b0a86b6a1343ebb5f9112ae757768a7cbbc770b2@i2pn2.org> <va65r8$6ht7$1@dont-email.me> <26fadbf7b8cb5f93dbe18bffeff6e959251f9892@i2pn2.org> <va6b4n$7boc$1@dont-email.me> <b19eb2a29dacfa67f2f9ced0d03234e980f4c985@i2pn2.org> <va6edj$8f0p$1@dont-email.me> <va6s5i$c9tl$1@dont-email.me> <va7cof$ebdg$1@dont-email.me> <e12d5d2caec39f6964f567343dad8333a92970fe@i2pn2.org> <va7et1$ebdg$6@dont-email.me> <014d24acf43dc57225d2f616618267dd6f94bb8d@i2pn2.org> <va8o7n$o6er$1@dont-email.me> <c681fb4eb0d1402c5478af3876da12e423d36f2b@i2pn2.org> <va8p99$ok13$1@dont-email.me> <a088f0304d7d70cc24fcf1836a79723e5877709d@i2pn2.org> <va8tkd$p4le$1@dont-email.me> <60be00c59f11a2981b0a8a3f4a03552ccfd261c8@i2pn2.org> <va913a$pe80$1@dont-email.me> <d679f4fd72c50b378d086ac4da15b679ff3f72c8@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2024 06:47:07 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f8a0fb7d826cb38436ab23242cfcae90"; logging-data="847461"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX187r3ciTo4TmihDboZfj1ct" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:9pKk1lz4hCvr+quiZQ1CATfIgrI= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <d679f4fd72c50b378d086ac4da15b679ff3f72c8@i2pn2.org> Bytes: 8289 On 8/22/2024 11:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 8/22/24 11:53 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 8/22/2024 10:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 8/22/24 10:54 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 8/22/2024 9:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 8/22/24 9:39 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 8/22/2024 8:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 8/22/24 9:21 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 8/22/2024 7:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 8/22/24 9:36 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 8/22/2024 8:21 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Am Thu, 22 Aug 2024 07:59:59 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/22/2024 3:16 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 22.aug.2024 om 06:22 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <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> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> We swap the word "determines" for "predicts" >>>>>>>>>>>> When we swap thew word "halt decider" for "termination >>>>>>>>>>>> analyzer" the >>>>>>>>>>>> above is translated from computer science into software >>>>>>>>>>>> engineering. >>>>>>>>>>>> The second half proves that this is the H that aborts that >>>>>>>>>>>> is making the >>>>>>>>>>>> prediction of the behavior of D when emulated by a >>>>>>>>>>>> hypothetical version >>>>>>>>>>>> of itself then never aborts. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS EXACTLY MATCHES THE SIPSER APPROVED CRITERIA The >>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite HHH(DDD) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> emulates itself emulating DDD exactly once and this is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sufficient for >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this HHH to predict what a different HHH(DDD) do that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> never aborted >>>>>>>>>>>>>> its emulation of its input. >>>>>>>>>>>>> But that different hypothetical HHH is a non-input. >>>>>>>>>>>> HHH is supposed to predict what the behavior of DDD would be >>>>>>>>>>>> if it did >>>>>>>>>>>> not abort its emulation of DDD that is what the words that >>>>>>>>>>>> Professor >>>>>>>>>>>> agreed to mean. >>>>>>>>>>> If IT didn’t abort DDD calling its aborting self. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I don't know how you twist words to get that. >>>>>>>>>> HHH is required to predict the behavior of DDD >>>>>>>>>> as if every HHH had its abort code removed. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But that isn't the input, so that is just a LIE. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> PREDICT HYPOTHETICAL BEHAVIOR >>>>>>> Nope, Predict the ACTUAL behavior. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You are just admitting you are lying about the >>>>>> >>>>>> That is NOT what the words actually say. >>>>>> I hope you don't get condemned to Hell over this. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yes, it is, at least when you understand the TECHNICAL meaning of >>>>> the words in Computation Theory. >>>> >>>> Termination analyzers in software engineering are >>>> isomorphic to partial halt deciders in computer >>>> science you really can't get away with saying otherwise >>>> and not look foolish. >>> >>> Then they must follow the same rules (or you are lying that they are >>> isomoprhic). >>> >>> Deciders of program behavior must be given PROGRAMS, which always >>> contain ALL of the code used by it, thus for DDD, it includes the HHH >>> that it calls. >>> >> >> It was ridiculous that you ever assumed otherwise. > > But you keep on trying to pass of your "DDD" that doesn't contain HHH as > your input. > https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c That code has been available for years, ask Mike to explain it to you. >> >>> Incomplete descriptions that just don't contain everything are just >>> incorrect. >>> >>> Also, "Termination analyzers" are NOT the same thing as a Halt >>> Deciders, as the term "Termination Analyzers" refer to something that >>> decides if a given program will Halt on ALL POSSIBLE inputs, rather >>> than the specific given input that a Halt Decider decides on. >>> >> >> So you don't know what "isomorphic" means. >> It does not mean identical in every respect. >> Maybe "functionally equivalent" is easy for you. > > It means of the same form "iso" same, "morph" form. > > So, how do you consider them functionally equivalent if they don't do > the same sort of thing. > > Note, Termination analyzing is a MUCH tougher problem, and it CAN'T be > done by simple emulation, but must be done in a much more abstract look > at the operation. > Not for inputs that have no inputs. >> >>> Sorry, you are just proving your ignorance of what you are trying to >>> talk about. >>> >> >> It is not I that am proving ignorance. >> You didn't know what "isomorphic means" > > No, *YOU* DON'T seem to, as there seems to be more differences in your > comparison than similarities. > > For example, NOTHING in the definiton of a "Termination Analzer" says it > is "Partial". Saying partial only means that it is not all knowing. > It is just that the field understand that they must be > partial as it is impossible to do it completely. See that you are not as dumb as your words make you seem. > Jst as most discussion > of trying to Halt Decide will assume partial results, unless > specifically talking about the Halting Problem where the precision is > needed. > HHH is a termination analyzer for DDD and a full halt decider with for the domain of consisting of the finite string of the x86 machine code of DDD. >> >>>> >>>>> Something you are just IGNORANT of. >>>>> ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========