Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_Analysis_of_Flibble=E2=80=99s_Latest=3A_Detecting_v?= =?UTF-8?Q?s=2E_Simulating_Infinite_Recursion_ZFC?= Date: Mon, 26 May 2025 13:15:46 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 191 Message-ID: <1012b4i$24k39$1@dont-email.me> References: <100l1ov$2ul3j$1@dont-email.me> <100l3jh$2v0e9$1@dont-email.me> <100l5c8$2ul3j$2@dont-email.me> <100l75g$2vpq3$1@dont-email.me> <100l887$2ul3i$2@dont-email.me> <100l9gh$30aak$1@dont-email.me> <100lc4o$30pgm$1@dont-email.me> <100ld1u$312c9$1@dont-email.me> <100lg4g$31jt3$1@dont-email.me> <100lkdv$32ib3$1@dont-email.me> <100lmif$32v06$1@dont-email.me> <100lmp3$32ven$1@dont-email.me> <100m319$38k55$2@dont-email.me> <87jz69xlpx.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <100mder$39slu$2@dont-email.me> <100oipb$3oge1$1@dont-email.me> <87a573xz0s.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <875xhrtbpr.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <100r2mb$b2b1$1@dont-email.me> <87msb2x39x.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <100rbkf$g939$1@dont-email.me> <87h619wmfk.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <100tpm0$10tha$1@dont-email.me> <100tqcd$110ge$3@dont-email.me> <100upif$1ahac$1@dont-email.me> <100v8ve$1d5lg$3@dont-email.me> <1011apa$1u6vi$1@dont-email.me> <10122tl$22da5$8@dont-email.me> <1012ahp$24dfe$3@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 26 May 2025 20:15:47 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="64fd189e500b414701d6509a3265afae"; logging-data="2248809"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18hZRKDgattYuBoEExAgRpP" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:3gJEaskjgd/k5WsfKCQrVSazWP8= In-Reply-To: <1012ahp$24dfe$3@dont-email.me> Content-Language: en-US X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250525-10, 5/25/2025), Outbound message On 5/26/2025 1:05 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: > Op 26.mei.2025 om 17:55 schreef olcott: >> On 5/26/2025 4:03 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 2025-05-25 14:20:30 +0000, olcott said: >>> >>>> On 5/25/2025 4:57 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 2025-05-25 01:05:17 +0000, olcott said: >>>>> >>>>>> On 5/24/2025 7:53 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/24/2025 7:42 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>> Mike Terry writes: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 24/05/2025 01:26, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Mike Terry writes: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 23/05/2025 19:37, Keith Thompson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Ben Bacarisse writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Mike Terry >>>>>>>>>>>>> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>>>>>>>> And the big picture is that this can be done because false >>>>>>>>>>>>> is the >>>>>>>>>>>>> correct halting decision for some halting computations.  He >>>>>>>>>>>>> has said >>>>>>>>>>>>> this explicitly (as I have posted before) but he has also >>>>>>>>>>>>> explained it >>>>>>>>>>>>> in words: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> | When-so-ever a halt decider correctly determines that its >>>>>>>>>>>>> input would >>>>>>>>>>>>> | never halt unless forced to halt by this halt decider >>>>>>>>>>>>> this halt >>>>>>>>>>>>> | decider has made a correct not-halting determination. >>>>>>>>>>>> Hmm.  I don't read that the way you do.  Did I miss something? >>>>>>>>>>>> It assumes that the input is a non-halting computation ("its >>>>>>>>>>>> input >>>>>>>>>>>> would never halt") and asserts that, in certain circumstances, >>>>>>>>>>>> his mythical halt decider correctly determines that the input >>>>>>>>>>>> is non-halting. >>>>>>>>>>>> When his mythical halt decider correctly determines that its >>>>>>>>>>>> input >>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't halt, it has made a correct non-halting determination. >>>>>>>>>>>> It's just a tautology. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You're reading it the way most people would, and in the way I >>>>>>>>>>> said Sipser >>>>>>>>>>> would be interpreting the oft-quoted "Sipser quote".  I don't >>>>>>>>>>> think you've >>>>>>>>>>> missed anything particularly. >>>>>>>>>> Maybe it makes less sense out of the context it was posted in. >>>>>>>>>> This was >>>>>>>>>> when he was being less obtuse.  The computation in question >>>>>>>>>> only halts >>>>>>>>>> because it is halted by the decider on which it is built.  It >>>>>>>>>> is a >>>>>>>>>> halting computation, but according to PO it can reported as >>>>>>>>>> not halting >>>>>>>>>> because of what would happen if it were not halted by the >>>>>>>>>> decider from >>>>>>>>>> which it is derived. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "The computation in question only halts because it is halted by >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> decider on which it is built." >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That is presumably you speaking in PO's voice, but my first >>>>>>>>> reading >>>>>>>>> was as you saying it! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It was paraphrase.  He has evolved (deliberately) from being >>>>>>>> very clear: >>>>>>>> false is correct for some halting computations; the set of halting >>>>>>>> computation is expanded to include some others; right though to the >>>>>>>> wording that he managed to trick Sipser with. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The intermediate stages involved turns of phrase like "some >>>>>>>> computations >>>>>>>> only halt because the simulator halts them" and "it would not >>>>>>>> halt if >>>>>>>> line 15 were commented out" and so on.  But the basic plan has >>>>>>>> been the >>>>>>>> same for years: some halting computations can be classed as non- >>>>>>>> halting >>>>>>>> because they halt for a reason he considers special -- a closely >>>>>>>> related >>>>>>>> but different computation would not halt. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If PO were a normal person, the key would be to go back and >>>>>>>> forth getting >>>>>>>> answers to direct questions that would illuminate what he >>>>>>>> thinks. But >>>>>>>> cranks always duck and dive when asked direct questions because >>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>> know that must avoid being clear.  I have dozens of notes of direct >>>>>>>> questions being evaded, time and time again.  The only game (for >>>>>>>> me) is >>>>>>>> to try to get a crank to actually say what they mean as clearly as >>>>>>>> possible.  That is, after all, what a proper exchange of view >>>>>>>> should be >>>>>>>> based on. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>> As ever, pointing it out to PO, however explicitly and clearly, >>>>>>>>> has no >>>>>>>>> effect on what PO believes. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Right, but it is possible to try to get as clear and concise an >>>>>>>> expression of what he believes.  There's no point in trying to >>>>>>>> change >>>>>>>> his mind, but his nonsense can then be laid bare for all to >>>>>>>> see.  At >>>>>>>> that point, I would want to just repeat it back (every time he >>>>>>>> posts) >>>>>>>> with an brief explanation that it's wrong rather than try to >>>>>>>> educate PO. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _DDD() >>>>>>> [00002192] 55             push ebp >>>>>>> [00002193] 8bec           mov ebp,esp >>>>>>> [00002195] 6892210000     push 00002192 >>>>>>> [0000219a] e833f4ffff     call 000015d2  // call HHH >>>>>>> [0000219f] 83c404         add esp,+04 >>>>>>> [000021a2] 5d             pop ebp >>>>>>> [000021a3] c3             ret >>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [000021a3] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Since it is an easily verified fact that DDD emulated >>>>>>> by HHH according to the rules of the x86 language >>>>>>> would never stop running unless aborted by HHH: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I can't imagine how anyone disagreeing with this >>>>>>> is not a damned liar. If anyone disagrees knowing >>>>>>> that they simply don't understand these things >>>>>>> they too are also damned liars. >>>>>> >>>>>> int main() >>>>>> { >>>>>>    DDD();  // No matter what the f-ck its caller does >>>>>> }         // The finite string input to the HHH(DDD) >>>>>>            // that DDD calls SPECIFIES a non-halting >>>>>>            // sequence of configurations. >>>>> >>>>> You  forgot one exception: if HHH (the one that DDD calls) is a >>>>> decider >>>>> then DDD specifies a halting sequence of configurations. >>>> >>>> It is a tautology that any simulated input finite >>>> string that must be aborted to prevent its infinite >>>> simulation does specify a non-halting sequence. >>> >>> Irrelevant >> >> This is the most important aspect of simulating halt deciders. >> When-so-ever any simulated input must be aborted to prevent its >> own infinite simulation >> THEN THIS INPUT IS CORRECTLY REJECTED AS NON-HALTING >> >> _DDD() >> [00002192] 55             push ebp >> [00002193] 8bec           mov ebp,esp >> [00002195] 6892210000     push 00002192 ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========