Re: Sequence of sequence, selection and iteration matters --- Ben agrees (typo corrected)

On 7/8/24 9:23 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/8/2024 7:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

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.

 *Free will does not make lies into truth*
 If HHH reports that it does not need to abort
DDD before it aborts DDD then HHH is a liar.

No, It COULD report that it has determined that it doesn't NEED to abort its simulation, but does so anyway. Nothing says HHH MUST simulate to the end if it can determine the right answwer sooner.
The problem is that HHH doesn't know that is true, as it doesn't know what DDD will do after HHH returns to it, so all it can do is guess.

 If you need groceries and report that you don't
need groceries before you get more groceries then
you are a liar.

No, I can not NEED groceries, but still go to the store and get somee things I WANT (but don't need). It might be a hot day and I want a fresh flavor of Ice Cream for that day. I don't NEED it, as I have some other flavors, but I can still go.
You are just showing how bad your logic is, you can't even argue about simple philosophy.

 _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]