Re: Sequence of sequence, selection and iteration matters --- Ben agrees

On 2024-07-08 23:45:16 +0000, olcott said:

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>
 *Ben agrees that the "if" statement has been met*

How is that relevant? Even if he did, you can't prove that he was not
mistaken. If you could. you wouldn't need to mention him.

*Ben agrees that the "if" statement has been met*
*Ben agrees that the "if" statement has been met*
 On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
 > I don't think that is the shell game.  PO really /has/ an H (it's
 > trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines that P(P)
 > *would* never stop running *unless* aborted.
...
 > But H determines (correctly) that D would not halt if it were not
 > halted.  That much is a truism.
 *Ben fails to understand this*
If HHH reported that it did not need to abort DDD
before it aborted DDD then HHH would be lying.

If he fails to understand one thing you should not assume that
he does understand another thing.
But why should anybody care about his understanding?
--
Mikko