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 ==========