Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Sequence of sequence, selection and iteration matters --- Ben agrees Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2024 22:52:41 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <18130c8e8dab40636d95f2a2ddce994e59c8aef5@i2pn2.org> References:

<80ebfd233bf599468126ddf048190bd0799605bd@i2pn2.org>

MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2024 02:52:41 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="2743986"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 5935 Lines: 103 On 7/9/24 10:24 AM, olcott wrote: > On 7/9/2024 1:28 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2024-07-08 23:45:16 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> On 7/8/2024 6:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 7/8/24 9:04 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 7/8/2024 2:22 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 2024-07-07 14:16:10 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>> >>>>>>> _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] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sufficient knowledge of the x86 language conclusively proves >>>>>>> that the call from DDD correctly emulated by HHH to HHH(DDD) >>>>>>> cannot possibly return for any pure function HHH. >>>>>> >>>>>> Suffifcient knowledge of the x86 language makes obvious that >>>>>> DDD returns if and only if HHH returns. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That is insufficient knowledge. Sufficient knowledge proves that >>>>> DDD correctly simulated by HHH meets this criteria. >>>> >>>> Nope, YOU have the insufficent knowledge, since you don't understand >>>> that the x86 language says programs are deterministic, and their >>>> behavior is fully establish when they are written, and running or >>>> simulating them is only a way to observe that behavior, and the only >>>> CORRECT observation of all the behavior, so letting that operation >>>> reach its final state. >>>> >>> >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> >>> *Ben agrees that the "if" statement has been met* >> >> How is that relevant? Even if he did, you can't prove that he was not >> mistaken. If you could. you wouldn't need to mention him. >> >>> *Ben agrees that the "if" statement has been met* >>> *Ben agrees that the "if" statement has been met* >>> >>> On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> > I don't think that is the shell game. PO really /has/ an H (it's >>> > trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines that P(P) >>> > *would* never stop running *unless* aborted. >>> ... >>> > But H determines (correctly) that D would not halt if it were not >>> > halted. That much is a truism. >>> >>> *Ben fails to understand this* >>> If HHH reported that it did not need to abort DDD >>> before it aborted DDD then HHH would be lying. >> >> If he fails to understand one thing you should not assume that >> he does understand another thing. >> > > Ben proves that he agrees that the If part of the Professor > Sipser approved criteria has been met when he paraphrases > this into his own words: Nope, he agreed that based on YOUR definiton of the words (and not the conventional one that Professor Sipser uses) that your H is a correct POOP decider (since what it decides is NOT "Halting" but some strange concept of "Needed to abort" based on things being able to be things they are not). > > On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > > But H determines (correctly) that D would not halt > > if it were not halted. That much is a truism. > > *Here is the part that Ben fails to understand* > *I have never explained this issue to Ben this clearly before* > Ben seems to believe that HHH must report that it need not > abort its emulation of DDD because AFTER HHH has already > aborted this emulation DDD does not need to be aborted. > Right, To be a Halt Decider, HHH must report on the actual behavior of the direct execution of the input, and if that halts, then H didn't actually need to have done the abort it did. If you changed H to not abort, and built D by the actual rules so it still had its copy of the original H, you would see that the non-aborting H' would be able to simulate the D calling the aborting H would have the aborting H return to it and it halts. Thus, H really didn't need to abort, but only because it did. You created the paradox by not using the right computation model, as your H and P are not actualy seperate computations as needed.