Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Anyone that disagrees with this is not telling the truth --- V5 --- Professor Sipser Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2024 07:11:06 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <23149c9848993263c62da1e7ef6661e3348729a5@i2pn2.org> References: <431deaa157cdae1cae73a1b24268a61cf8ec2c1c@i2pn2.org> <7a1c569a699e79bfa146affbbae3eac7b91cd263@i2pn2.org> <729cc551062c13875686d266a5453a488058e81c@i2pn2.org> <148bf4dd91f32379a6d81a621fb7ec3fc1e00db0@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2024 11:11:06 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="3335615"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 11828 Lines: 255 On 8/20/24 11:01 PM, olcott wrote: > On 8/20/2024 9:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 8/20/24 10:44 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 8/20/2024 8:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 8/20/24 9:17 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 8/20/2024 7:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 8/20/24 7:28 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 8/20/2024 6:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 8/20/24 9:09 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 8/19/2024 11:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 8/19/24 11:50 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 8/19/2024 10:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/19/24 10:47 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> *Everything that is not expressly stated below is* >>>>>>>>>>>>> *specified as unspecified* >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Looks like you still have this same condition. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I thought you said you removed it. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> void DDD() >>>>>>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD); >>>>>>>>>>>>>    return; >>>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> _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] >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> *It is a basic fact that DDD emulated by HHH according to* >>>>>>>>>>>>> *the semantics of the x86 language cannot possibly stop* >>>>>>>>>>>>> *running unless aborted* (out of memory error excluded) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> But it can't emulate DDD correctly past 4 instructions, >>>>>>>>>>>> since the 5th instruciton to emulate doesn't exist. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> And, you can't include the memory that holds HHH, as you >>>>>>>>>>>> mention HHHn below, so that changes, but DDD, so the input >>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't and thus is CAN'T be part of the input. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> X = DDD emulated by HHH∞ according to the semantics of the >>>>>>>>>>>>> x86 language >>>>>>>>>>>>> Y = HHH∞ never aborts its emulation of DDD >>>>>>>>>>>>> Z = DDD never stops running >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The above claim boils down to this: (X ∧ Y) ↔ Z >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> And neither X or Y are possible. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> x86utm takes the compiled Halt7.obj file of this c program >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus making all of the code of HHH directly available to >>>>>>>>>>>>> DDD and itself. HHH emulates itself emulating DDD. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Which is irrelevent and a LIE as if HHHn is part of the >>>>>>>>>>>> input, that input needs to be DDDn >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> And, in fact, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Since, you have just explicitly introduced that all of HHHn >>>>>>>>>>>> is available to HHHn when it emulates its input, that DDD >>>>>>>>>>>> must actually be DDDn as it changes. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thus, your ACTUAL claim needs to be more like: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> X = DDD∞ emulated by HHH∞ according to the semantics of the >>>>>>>>>>>> x86 language >>>>>>>>>>>> Y = HHH∞ never aborts its emulation of DDD∞ >>>>>>>>>>>> Z = DDD∞ never stops running >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The above claim boils down to this: (X ∧ Y) ↔ Z >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes that is correct. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So, you only prove that the DDD∞ that calls the HHH∞ is non- >>>>>>>>>> halting. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Not any of the other DDDn >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Your problem is that for any other DDDn / HHHn, you don't >>>>>>>>>>>> have Y so you don't have Z. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> void EEE() >>>>>>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>>>>>    HERE: goto HERE; >>>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> HHHn correctly predicts the behavior of DDD the same >>>>>>>>>>>>> way that HHHn correctly predicts the behavior of EEE. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, HHHn can form a valid inductive proof of the input. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It can't for DDDn, since when we move to HHHn+1 we no longer >>>>>>>>>>>> have DDDn but DDDn+1, which is a different input. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You already agreed that (X ∧ Y) ↔ Z is correct. >>>>>>>>>>> Did you do an infinite trace in your mind? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But only for DDD∞, not any of the other ones. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If you can do it and I can do it then HHH can >>>>>>>>>>> do this same sort of thing. Computations are >>>>>>>>>>> not inherently dumber than human minds. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But HHHn isn't given DDD∞ as its input, so that doesn't matter. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> HHHn is given DDDn as its input, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Remeber, since you said that the input to HHH includes all the >>>>>>>>>> memory, if that differs, it is a DIFFERENT input, and needs to >>>>>>>>>> be so marked. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You are just admittig that you are just stupid and think two >>>>>>>>>> things that are different are the same. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *attempts to use misdirection to weasel word around this are >>>>>>>>> dismissed* >>>>>>>>> *attempts to use misdirection to weasel word around this are >>>>>>>>> dismissed* >>>>>>>>> *attempts to use misdirection to weasel word around this are >>>>>>>>> dismissed* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Right, so the decider needs top be able to show that its exact >>>>>>>> input will not halt. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No it cannot possibly mean that or professor Sipser >>>>>>> would not agreed to the second half: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>      H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D >>>>>>>      specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. >>>>>>> >>>>>> 10/13/2022> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========