Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<vakg56$2vsr3$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: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: V5 --- Professor Sipser --- Does Ben Bacarisse believe that Professor Sipser is wrong? Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2024 15:17:42 +0300 Organization: - Lines: 153 Message-ID: <vakg56$2vsr3$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> <vaigmq$2ibdj$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2024 14:17:42 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6a6718b96d66ed796c4d0a5c1defadb7"; logging-data="3142499"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18OJU4GasMzmy17ENX1gPIe" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:BG249vO9wrMViK0qP8LKfR9ALPM= Bytes: 9034 On 2024-08-26 18:14:50 +0000, olcott said: > 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. That does not change the fact that the simulated HHH would have >> detected the 'specific' condition and would have halted. > > OK I got it now. > > _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] > > [Correctly emulated] is specified to mean emulated > according to the semantics of the x86 language. Your HHH does not do that if the called function at low address, including HHH's own address. -- Mikko