Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis

On 6/10/2024 1:57 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-09 16:18:06 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 6/9/2024 10:15 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-09 13:53:20 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 6/9/2024 3:20 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-08 12:52:36 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 6/8/2024 1:36 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-07 17:11:39 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 6/7/2024 11:56 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-07 14:47:35 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 6/7/2024 1:30 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-06 15:31:36 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 6/6/2024 10:14 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-06 13:53:58 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 6/6/2024 5:15 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-05 13:29:28 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 6/5/2024 2:37 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-04 18:02:03 +0000, olcott said:
>

*HOW PARTIAL SIMULATIONS CORRECTLY DETERMINE NON-HALTING*
>
On 10/13/2022 11:29:23 AM
MIT Professor Michael Sipser agreed this verbatim paragraph is correct
(He has neither reviewed nor agreed to anything else in this paper)
>
<Professor Sipser agreed>
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.
</Professor Sipser agreed>

>
It is quite clear what Professor Sipser agreed.

>
Those were my verbatim words that he agreed to, no one
has ever correctly provided any alternative interpretation
that could possibly make my own HH(DD,DD)==0 incorrect.

>
One can agree with those words because they are both clear and true.
Whether they are sufficient to your purposes is another problem but
that is nor relevant to their acceptablility.
>

If you use those words
as the second last part of your proof then it sould be obvious that we
need to look at the other parts in order to find an error in the proof.

>
That is slightly more than zero supporting reasoning yet mere gibberish
when construed as any rebuttal to this:

>
Those who disagree with you about whether something is "gibberish" may
think that you are stupid. You probably don't want them to think so,
regardless whether thinking so would be right or wrong.
>

*This unequivocally proves the behavior of DD correctly simulated by HH*
https://liarparadox.org/DD_correctly_simulated_by_HH_is_Proven.pdf

>
Why would anyone construe my words as any rebuttal to that? That pdf
merely claims that a partucuar author (a C program) proves two particular
claims, the second of which is badly formed (because of the two
verbs it is hard to parse and consequently hard to be sure that the
apparent meaning or apparent lack of meaning is what is intended).
>

>
*I will dumb it down for you some more*

>
Did you knwo that "dumb it down" does not mean 'change the topic'?
>

Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH
such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe]
>
_DD()
[00001e12] 55         push ebp
[00001e13] 8bec       mov  ebp,esp
[00001e15] 51         push ecx
[00001e16] 8b4508     mov  eax,[ebp+08]
[00001e19] 50         push eax      ; push DD
[00001e1a] 8b4d08     mov  ecx,[ebp+08]
[00001e1d] 51         push ecx      ; push DD
[00001e1e] e85ff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH
>
*That meets this criteria*

>
It doesn't if you mean the criteria implied by the subject line.
>

>
Yes it does mean that when we ourselves detect the repeating
state of DD correctly simulated by HH does meet the first part
of the following criteria:

>
What does your "first part" mean? There is more than one way to
partition the criteria.
>

>
    If simulating halt decider HH correctly simulates its input DD
    until HH correctly determines that its simulated DD would never
    stop running unless aborted then

>
That is all of the criteria, so should not be called "first part".
Atually Sipser only agreed about H and D, not about HH and DD but
that does not make any difference for the above.

>
Professor Sipser knew full well that H and D are mere
placeholders for simulating halt decider H with arbitrary input D.

>
Yes, as nothing more is specified in the agreed text. But his expressed
agreement does not extend to any substition of those placeholders.
>

>
It allows substitution of any simulating halt decider for H
and any finite string input for D. If you are going to lie
about this I am going to quit looking at what you say.

>
Sipser clearly said that his agreement does not extend to any
substitutions.
>

>
Those I my verbatim words that he agreed with and I said no such thing.

>
What did you not say?

>
AGREEMENT DOES EXTEND TO SUBSTITUTIONS OTHERWISE
X > 5 proves that X > 3 only applies when X is 8

 On 2022-10-13 18:56:58 +0000, olcott said:
 

*Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words (and no more)*
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.

 You said "and no more", which means that Professor Sipser does not
agree with any substitution or any result of a substitution. Why
do you say that he now agrees more than he did then?
 

Of course he does not mean that. You are being disingenuous to the
degree of dishonestly. What he means is that he never looked at any
specific application of this generic criteria.
How could he possibly be referring to a specific H and a specific
D when neither of these have been defined? He made sure to not even
look at any specific H and D. He had 300 students at the time.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer