Path: ...!2.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: V5 --- Professor Sipser --- Ben understands the DDD emulated by
 HHH cannot possibly reach its halt state
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2024 12:34:20 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 197
Message-ID: <vaieas$2hrmb$1@dont-email.me>
References: <va104l$376ed$4@dont-email.me>
 <d42e5d30ea5f1c067283cb04d8a7293e2117188e@i2pn2.org>
 <va24hl$3cvgv$1@dont-email.me>
 <431deaa157cdae1cae73a1b24268a61cf8ec2c1c@i2pn2.org>
 <va38qh$3ia79$1@dont-email.me>
 <7a1c569a699e79bfa146affbbae3eac7b91cd263@i2pn2.org>
 <va3f7o$3ipp3$1@dont-email.me>
 <729cc551062c13875686d266a5453a488058e81c@i2pn2.org>
 <va3kac$3nd5c$1@dont-email.me>
 <148bf4dd91f32379a6d81a621fb7ec3fc1e00db0@i2pn2.org>
 <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>
 <da75188ffa7677bd2b6979c8fc6ba82119404306@i2pn2.org>
 <878qwn0wyz.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <vafbb7$1t7ed$1@dont-email.me>
 <vafo8i$20jfl$1@dont-email.me> <vag0vn$22bh7$1@dont-email.me>
 <vag3df$22hmk$1@dont-email.me> <vag437$22sog$1@dont-email.me>
 <vahagp$2c6g7$1@dont-email.me> <vahqlk$2el3d$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2024 19:34:21 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="dec62610ca8735fc1c973bb1b2398434";
	logging-data="2682571"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19JUlWMtVX9UdSbCoD0oaFE"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:7RD6di+e0Dz7fL4obrx/uzYzu6s=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vahqlk$2el3d$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 10986

On 8/26/2024 6:58 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/26/2024 2:23 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 25.aug.2024 om 22:27 schreef olcott:
>>> On 8/25/2024 3:15 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 25.aug.2024 om 21:34 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 8/25/2024 12:05 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 25.aug.2024 om 15:24 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>> On 8/23/2024 4:07 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>> joes <noreply@example.org> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Am Wed, 21 Aug 2024 20:55:52 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Professor Sipser clearly agreed that an H that does a finite 
>>>>>>>>>> simulation
>>>>>>>>>> of D is to predict the behavior of an unlimited simulation of D.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If the simulator *itself* would not abort. The H called by D is,
>>>>>>>>> by construction, the same and *does* abort.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We don't really know what context Sipser was given.  I got in 
>>>>>>>> touch at
>>>>>>>> the time so do I know he had enough context to know that PO's 
>>>>>>>> ideas were
>>>>>>>> "wacky" and that had agreed to what he considered a "minor remark".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since PO considers his words finely crafted and key to his so- 
>>>>>>>> called
>>>>>>>> work I think it's clear that Sipser did not take the "minor 
>>>>>>>> remark" he
>>>>>>>> agreed to to mean what PO takes it to mean!  My own take if that he
>>>>>>>> (Sipser) read it as a general remark about how to determine some 
>>>>>>>> cases,
>>>>>>>> i.e. that D names an input that H can partially simulate to 
>>>>>>>> determine
>>>>>>>> it's halting or otherwise.  We all know or could construct some 
>>>>>>>> such
>>>>>>>> cases.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I suspect he was tricked because PO used H and D as the names 
>>>>>>>> without
>>>>>>>> making it clear that D was constructed from H in the usual way 
>>>>>>>> (Sipser
>>>>>>>> uses H and D in at least one of his proofs).  Of course, he is 
>>>>>>>> clued in
>>>>>>>> enough know that, if D is indeed constructed from H like that, the
>>>>>>>> "minor remark" becomes true by being a hypothetical: if the moon 
>>>>>>>> is made
>>>>>>>> of cheese, the Martians can look forward to a fine fondue.  But,
>>>>>>>> personally, I think the professor is more straight talking than 
>>>>>>>> that,
>>>>>>>> and he simply took as a method that can work for some inputs. 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <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>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If professor Sipser agreed to this and it only works for
>>>>>>> some inputs then his agreement would have been incorrect.
>>>>>>> There was an 18 message exchange prior to this agreement.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I do not believe that Professor Sipser made a mistake
>>>>>>> because it still seems to be a simple tautology to me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's
>>>>>>>> the only way is could be seen as a "minor remark" with being 
>>>>>>>> accused of
>>>>>>>> being disingenuous.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ben saw this right away and it seems that most everyone else 
>>>>>>>>>> simply lied
>>>>>>>>>> about it.
>>>>>>>>> I don’t think you understood him.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't think PO even reads what people write.  He certainly 
>>>>>>>> works hard
>>>>>>>> to avoid addressing any points made to him.  I think it's true 
>>>>>>>> to say
>>>>>>>> that pretty much every paraphrase he attempts "X 
>>>>>>>> thinks ..." (usually
>>>>>>>> phrased as "so you are saying that black is white?") is garbage.
>>>>>>>> Understanding what other people say is low in his priorities 
>>>>>>>> since they
>>>>>>>> must be wrong anyway.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (I refuse to have anything more to do with PO directly after he was
>>>>>>>> unconscionably rude, but I do keep an eye out for my name in 
>>>>>>>> case he
>>>>>>>> continues to smear it.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That people still disagree that a correct emulation
>>>>>>> of N instructions of DDD according to the semantics
>>>>>>> of the x86 language defines what a correct simulation
>>>>>>> is still seems flat out dishonest to me.
>>>>>> That someone still refuses to see that skipping the last few 
>>>>>> instructions of a halting program is a violation of the semantics 
>>>>>> of the x86 language seems dishonest to me, in particular when 
>>>>>> several people pointed him to this error.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the case of DDD correctly emulated by HHH this does
>>>>>>> require HHH to emulate itself emulating DDD exactly one
>>>>>>> time before HHH sees the repeating pattern.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A repeating, but not an infinite repeating pattern,
>>>>>
>>>>> *D would never stop running unless aborted*
>>>>> *D would never stop running unless aborted*
>>>>> *D would never stop running unless aborted*
>>>>> *D would never stop running unless aborted*
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you just being dishonest?
>>>>
>>>> Forget your dream of a non-aborting HHH. It does abort, so the 
>>>> 'unless' part makes it unnecessarily complicated. It stops running, 
>>>> because it aborts.
>>>> You can't have a HHH that is aborted, when it does not perform the 
>>>> abort itself.
>>>> Why don't you see that? Are you dishonest? It does abort and 
>>>> therefore is does not repeat infinitely. Then it halts. It stops 
>>>> running. Are you dishonest, or dreaming, or cheating?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>  because HHH is programmed to abort and halt after a few cycles, 
>>>>>
>>>>> *It never has been AFTER A FEW CYCLES*
>>>>> *It has always been until a specific condition is met*
>>>>
>>>> It is coded to abort when it sees this 'specific' condition (after a 
>>>> few cycles) and then it halts. 
>>>
>>> I have corrected you on this too may times.
>>> HALTS IS ONLY REACHING A FINAL HALT STATE
>>> HALTS IS ONLY REACHING A FINAL HALT STATE
>>> HALTS IS ONLY REACHING A FINAL HALT STATE
>>> HALTS IS ONLY REACHING A FINAL HALT STATE
>>> HALTS IS ONLY REACHING A FINAL HALT STATE
>>
>> You don't listen. Preventing a halting program to reach its halt state 
>> by aborting the simulation does not prove that it has non-halting 
>> behaviour.
>>
>> And by aborting the simulated HHH is prevented to reach this halt state. 
> 
> (other one was before coffee)
> *It is either OVER your head or you ARE a liar*
> 
>   machine   stack     stack     machine    assembly
>   address   address   data      code       language
>   ========  ========  ========  =========  =============
> [00002192][00103820][00000000] 55         push ebp      ; Begin main()
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========