Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections
Warning: mysqli::query(): Couldn't fetch mysqli in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\index.php on line 66
Article <vakg56$2vsr3$1@dont-email.me>
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