Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Sequence of sequence, selection and iteration matters --- Ben
 agrees
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2024 20:31:08 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <cf764821d8b9b08443fc6cd3d285bc0567f31fa6@i2pn2.org>
References: <v6e7va$c4sv$1@dont-email.me> <v6g444$pdc2$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6go4d$sg7f$1@dont-email.me>
 <80ebfd233bf599468126ddf048190bd0799605bd@i2pn2.org>
 <v6htmc$12ktu$1@dont-email.me>
 <dcd1b46e5442c8a532a33873f396b9cb9b0688a5@i2pn2.org>
 <v6hvps$12ktu$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2024 00:31:08 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2621132"; 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: <v6hvps$12ktu$3@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5049
Lines: 90

On 7/8/24 8:21 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/8/2024 6:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/8/24 7:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> <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>
>>
>> Which you H doesn't meet, since the definition of "Correct Simulation" 
>> here (as for most people) is a simulation that exactly reproduces the 
>> behavior of the full program the input represents, which means a 
>> simulaiton that doesn't abort.
>>
>> Since your H doesn't do that, or correctly determine what one of those 
>> would do (since it would halt since you H returns 0) so you CAN'T 
>> correctly predict that which doesn't happen.
>>
>>>
>>> *Ben agrees that the "if" statement has been met*
>>> *Ben agrees that the "if" statement has been met*
>>> *Ben agrees that the "if" statement has been met*
>>
>> No, he agress that your H, which is NOT a Halt Decider, is correctly 
>> answering your non-halt-deciding question.  In other words, it is a 
>> correct POOP decide.r
>>
> 
> It is literally true that Ben agrees that the "if" statement
> has been met.

Same words, but different meanings.

SO, NO

> 
> Ben disagrees with the second part because Ben fails to understand
> that HHH cannot correctly report that DDD would stop running until
> after HHH forces DDD to stop running.

No, HE understand that HHH to be a halt decider MUST correctly report 
that DDD will stop running since HHH(DDD) returns.

YOU are the one that doesn't understand the problem.

> 
> When you need groceries you cannot say that you
> don't need groceries until AFTER you get more groceries.
> 

Which is just Red Herring, as I am not a program, and the program is not me.

Something you don't understand, maybe because you sold your free will 
and got a deterministic program instead.