Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Should I quit Richard at this point?

On 6/8/24 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/8/2024 9:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/8/24 9:48 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/8/2024 8:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/8/24 8:52 AM, olcott wrote:

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.
>
<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>

>
And you can only use that with the definiton Professor Sipser has for "Correct Simulation" which you don't do,

>
I prove that my simulation is correct and your "rebuttal"
is refusal to look at this proof.

>
Nope, Not by the definition that Professor Sipser uses.
>
You don't get to change his meaning. PERIOD.
>

>

Nope, > This makes your claim that my simulation is incorrect

defamation and not any actual rebuttal.

>
Nope. Since you don't actual prove what you claim, me saying you don't prove it is a fact and not defamation.
>

>
On 6/5/2024 10:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
 > On 6/5/24 11:44 PM, olcott wrote:
 >>
 >> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK
 >> TO ME ABOUT UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT
 >> I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE THAT I AM INCORRECT
 >
 > But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you
 > are correct, because I am not willing to put
 > that effort into your worthless claim.
 >
>
That you call my proof not a proof is also defamation
unless until you correctly point out anything that is
missing from this proof.
>
>

>
But it is a FACT.
>
I HAVE pointed out what is missing, ANY set of truth-perserving operations from the accepted facts (which will of course need to name the fact they are working from) to your conclusion.

 The accepted facts are here
(a) The x86 language
(b) The notion of an x86 emulator
 {The proof that No DDD correctly emulated by any x86
  emulator H can possibly reach its own [00001df6] instruction}

So, how do you show this claim?
Do you have a tracing of the full INFINITE SET of possible Hs?

 Is the set of possible execution traces of DDD correctly
emulated by x86 emulator HH on the basis of the above
accepted facts.
 Maybe you are just clueless about these technical details
are are trying to hide this with pure bluster.
 _DDD()
[00001de2] 55         push ebp
[00001de3] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
[00001de5] 8b4508     mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00001de8] 50         push eax         ; push DD
[00001de9] 8b4d08     mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00001dec] 51         push ecx         ; push DD
[00001ded] e890f5ffff call 00001382    ; call HH
[00001df2] 83c408     add esp,+08
[00001df5] 5d         pop ebp
[00001df6] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0021) [00001df6]
 You keep disagreeing with the fact that DDD correctly
emulated by x86 emulator HH only has one single correct
execution trace of repeating the fist seven lines until
out-of-memory error.
 

But that is an INCORRECT trace per your definition,
The call HH instruction MUST be simulated into HH because that IS the behavior of the x86 instruction.
So, either you admit that you can only trace the x86 instructions of this input for 7 instructions (and thus not get to the out of memory error) or
that your input is actual the pairing of this code with the decider (and thus each decider gets its own input, and thus each input is only simulated for a finite number of steps, and many of these will just stop after a finite number of steps with an incomplete (but correct to your definition) simulation that doesn't prove non-halting.
or you do what the proof says, and pair the DDD with one of the specific deciders that you claim to give the right results, and when we simulate that input with another version of H that simulates enough longer, we see that it WILL reach a final state.
So, which versio is it? Your conclusion is wrong