Re: Richard seems to continue to blatantly lie -- A clearer explanation for Ben

On 7/9/2024 7:29 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

Barb Knox <Barb@sig.below> writes:
 

On 04/07/2024 13:53, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/3/24 9:30 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/3/2024 8:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/3/24 8:36 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/3/2024 6:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/3/24 2:20 PM, olcott wrote:

_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

>
[...]
>
Can someone please explain to me why a discussion of the Halting Problem is
using Intel assembly laguage?

 Short answer: PO does not understand any of the formal models of
computation and he's been able to persuade people to keep talking to him
despite that rather severe limitation.
 It's also worth pointing out that this discussion is not about the
Halting Problem.  PO has been quite clear -- this is a discussion of a
decision problem (although he does not really understand that term) in
which false is the correct result for at least one halting computation.
 

<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" portion of the Professor Sipser*
*approve criteria has been satisfied*
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 that when the If portion has
been met that this means the second portion is entailed.
*I have never explained this issue to Ben this clearly before*
Ben seems to believe that HHH must report that it need not
abort the emulation of DDD because AFTER HHH has already
aborted this emulation DDD does not need to be aborted.
When you understand that the first simple two pages of my new
paper are correct then the rest of the paper logically follows
from that basis.
*I am in the process of simplifying the next section even more*
When DD has no parameters then the same actual termination
analyzer HHH applies to all four of the examples.
*Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer