Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.logic > #335351 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-06-09 22:54 -0500 |
| Last post | 2024-06-11 12:10 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 270 — 7 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.logic
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 22:54 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-10 07:16 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- Richard admits his error olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 21:06 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- Richard admits his error Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-10 23:32 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- Richard admits his error olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 23:31 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- Richard admits his error Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-11 07:47 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-11 12:12 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-11 18:47 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-11 18:23 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-06-12 02:20 +0200
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-11 19:57 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-11 22:32 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-11 22:34 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 07:33 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 11:50 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 18:59 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 18:12 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 19:41 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 18:53 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 20:37 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 20:19 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 21:50 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 20:54 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 22:06 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 21:21 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 22:57 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 22:24 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 23:45 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 22:58 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-13 07:31 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 10:32 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-13 21:24 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 20:39 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-13 23:04 -0400
H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 22:14 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-13 23:44 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 23:13 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-14 07:39 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 08:15 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-14 19:27 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 19:34 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-14 21:38 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 20:59 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-14 22:16 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 21:25 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-14 22:48 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 21:52 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-14 23:43 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 21:06 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-14 22:17 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 21:39 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-14 22:50 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 21:56 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-14 23:36 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 22:39 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-14 23:48 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 22:55 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 06:56 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 08:35 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 09:51 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 09:23 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 10:46 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 10:03 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 11:18 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 10:41 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 11:52 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 11:11 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 12:24 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 11:31 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 12:39 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 11:50 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 13:04 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 12:16 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 13:23 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 12:33 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 13:41 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 13:03 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 14:10 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 14:16 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 19:06 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 18:28 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 19:51 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 19:39 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 21:11 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 20:57 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 22:32 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 22:16 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-16 07:44 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-16 08:21 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-16 13:30 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-15 11:48 +0000
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 07:26 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. (Just misunderstood) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 09:52 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. (Just misunderstood) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 09:44 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. (Just misunderstood) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 11:09 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. (Just misunderstood) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 10:17 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. (Just misunderstood) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 11:24 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-20 22:30 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-20 23:52 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-20 23:01 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 10:36 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 11:56 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 13:06 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 12:16 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 13:26 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 12:38 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 13:52 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 13:18 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 14:42 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 13:53 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 15:05 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 14:19 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 15:33 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 14:45 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 16:00 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 15:52 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 17:10 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 16:25 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 17:46 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 17:44 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 18:58 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 18:11 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 19:36 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 18:27 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 19:38 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 22:16 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-22 04:24 +0000
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 23:31 -0500
Re: Dogma -- other deciders joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-22 08:59 +0000
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-22 09:03 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-22 08:12 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-22 09:38 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-22 08:59 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-22 08:12 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-22 09:38 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-22 04:09 +0000
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 23:18 -0500
Re: Boilerplate Reply -- different simulation joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-22 08:47 +0000
Re: Boilerplate Reply -- different simulation olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-22 08:08 -0500
Re: Boilerplate Reply -- different simulation joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-22 14:36 +0000
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-22 09:05 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-22 08:15 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-22 09:35 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 08:49 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 10:41 -0400
DDD correctly emulated by H0 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-22 13:47 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-22 20:53 +0200
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-22 13:56 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-22 15:11 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-25 09:22 +0000
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 08:16 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-06-25 13:46 +0000
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 09:03 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-06-25 14:32 +0000
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-25 16:28 +0000
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 12:21 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-25 20:25 +0000
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Ben fails to understand computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 09:21 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Ben fails to understand computable functions Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-25 21:47 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 10:56 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 12:45 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-25 21:47 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 21:05 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-25 22:23 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 21:29 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-25 22:55 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 22:29 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-25 23:35 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 22:42 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-26 07:02 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 08:42 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-26 19:41 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 18:46 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-26 19:55 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 19:20 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-26 20:42 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-06-27 02:15 +0100
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-06-27 02:30 +0100
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-26 21:52 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-06-27 03:06 +0100
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 21:29 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-26 22:38 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-26 22:39 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 21:51 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-26 23:16 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 22:34 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-27 07:34 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-27 08:35 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-27 19:57 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 21:13 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-26 22:39 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 21:56 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-26 23:15 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 22:30 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-27 07:34 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-27 09:00 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-27 19:57 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 21:04 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-06-27 03:16 +0100
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 21:35 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 21:00 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-27 09:10 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-28 07:40 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-28 23:49 -0400
H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 09:37 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 11:00 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 10:07 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 11:12 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 10:54 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-15 16:11 +0000
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 11:19 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 12:26 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 11:31 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 12:41 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 12:12 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 11:23 -0500
H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 11:57 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 13:17 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 12:39 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 14:08 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 13:55 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 19:15 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 18:40 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 19:57 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 19:44 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 21:13 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 20:39 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 22:02 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 22:22 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-16 07:44 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-16 08:04 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-16 13:30 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-11 22:30 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-11 22:21 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 07:33 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 11:57 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 19:03 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 18:25 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 19:45 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 19:37 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 20:52 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 20:27 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 21:36 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 20:50 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 22:16 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 21:25 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 22:37 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 21:48 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 23:08 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 22:26 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 23:49 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 23:06 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-13 07:31 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 08:37 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-13 17:19 +0000
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-13 22:19 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 21:22 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-13 23:06 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite sting transformations olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 08:07 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite sting transformations Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-13 22:27 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite sting transformations olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 21:30 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 08:10 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-06-13 14:35 +0000
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 10:08 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-13 22:35 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-13 22:31 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 21:33 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-12 08:24 +0200
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 09:36 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-11 12:10 -0500
Page 9 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 14 Next page →
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-25 12:45 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met |
| Message-ID | <v5evoi$1lgoi$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335969 |
On 6/25/2024 9:46 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> Hi, Ben.
>
> Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
>> Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes:
>
>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 6/25/2024 4:22 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>> Am Sat, 22 Jun 2024 13:47:24 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>> On 6/22/2024 1:39 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>> Op 21.jun.2024 om 15:21 schreef olcott:
>
>>>>>> When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct emulation is the
>>>>>> semantics of the x86 programming language then we see that when DDD is
>>>>>> correctly emulated by H0 that its call to H0(DDD) cannot possibly
>>>>>> return.
>>>>> Yes. Which is wrong, because H0 should terminate.
>
>>> [ .... ]
>
>>>> The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated
>>>> by H0 cannot possibly return.
>
>>>> Until you acknowledge this is true, this is the
>>>> only thing that I am willing to talk to you about.
>
>>> I think you are talking at cross purposes. Joes's point is that H0
>>> should terminate because it's a decider. You're saying that when H0 is
>>> "correctly" emulating, it won't terminate. I don't recall seeing anybody
>>> arguing against that.
>
>>> So you're saying, in effect, H0 is not a decider. I don't think anybody
>>> else would argue against that, either.
>
>> He's been making exactly the same nonsense argument for years. It
>> became crystal clear a little over three years ago when he made the
>> mistake of posting the pseudo-code for H -- a step by step simulator
>> that stopped simulating (famously on line 15) when some pattern was
>> detected. He declared false (not halting) to be the correct result for
>> the halting computation H(H_Hat(), H_Hat()) because of what H(H_Hat(),
>> H_Hat()) would do "if line 15 were commented out"!
>
>> PO does occasionally make it clear what the shell game is.
>
> I think it's important for (relative) newcomers to the newsgroup to
> become aware of this. Each one of them is trying to help PO improve his
> level of learning. They will eventually give up, as you and I have
> done, recognising (as Mike Terry, in particular, has done) that
> enriching PO's intellect is a quite impossible task.
>
> What's the betting he'll respond to this post with his usual short
> sequence of x86 assembly code together with a demand to recognise
> something or other as non-terminating?
>
>> --
>> Ben.
>
<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>
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.
>
> He knows and accepts that P(P) actually does stop. The
> wrong answer is justified by what would happen if H
> (and hence a different P) where not what they actually are.
>
Ben thinks that I tricked professor Sipser into agreeing
with something that he did not fully understand.
*The real issue is that no one here sufficiently understands*
*the highlighted portion of the following definition*
Computable functions are the formalized analogue of the
intuitive notion of algorithms, in the sense that a
function is computable if there exists an algorithm
that can do the job of the function, i.e.
*given an input of the function domain*
*it can return the corresponding output*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-25 21:47 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met |
| Message-ID | <v5frvn$14bcm$6@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335978 |
On 6/25/24 1:45 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/25/2024 9:46 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> Hi, Ben. >> >> Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> wrote: >>> Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes: >> >>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 6/25/2024 4:22 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>> Am Sat, 22 Jun 2024 13:47:24 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>> On 6/22/2024 1:39 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>> Op 21.jun.2024 om 15:21 schreef olcott: >> >>>>>>> When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct emulation is >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> semantics of the x86 programming language then we see that when >>>>>>> DDD is >>>>>>> correctly emulated by H0 that its call to H0(DDD) cannot possibly >>>>>>> return. >>>>>> Yes. Which is wrong, because H0 should terminate. >> >>>> [ .... ] >> >>>>> The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated >>>>> by H0 cannot possibly return. >> >>>>> Until you acknowledge this is true, this is the >>>>> only thing that I am willing to talk to you about. >> >>>> I think you are talking at cross purposes. Joes's point is that H0 >>>> should terminate because it's a decider. You're saying that when H0 is >>>> "correctly" emulating, it won't terminate. I don't recall seeing >>>> anybody >>>> arguing against that. >> >>>> So you're saying, in effect, H0 is not a decider. I don't think >>>> anybody >>>> else would argue against that, either. >> >>> He's been making exactly the same nonsense argument for years. It >>> became crystal clear a little over three years ago when he made the >>> mistake of posting the pseudo-code for H -- a step by step simulator >>> that stopped simulating (famously on line 15) when some pattern was >>> detected. He declared false (not halting) to be the correct result for >>> the halting computation H(H_Hat(), H_Hat()) because of what H(H_Hat(), >>> H_Hat()) would do "if line 15 were commented out"! >> >>> PO does occasionally make it clear what the shell game is. >> >> I think it's important for (relative) newcomers to the newsgroup to >> become aware of this. Each one of them is trying to help PO improve his >> level of learning. They will eventually give up, as you and I have >> done, recognising (as Mike Terry, in particular, has done) that >> enriching PO's intellect is a quite impossible task. >> >> What's the betting he'll respond to this post with his usual short >> sequence of x86 assembly code together with a demand to recognise >> something or other as non-terminating? >> >>> -- >>> Ben. >> > > <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> > > 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. > > > > He knows and accepts that P(P) actually does stop. The > > wrong answer is justified by what would happen if H > > (and hence a different P) where not what they actually are. > > > > Ben thinks that I tricked professor Sipser into agreeing > with something that he did not fully understand. > > *The real issue is that no one here sufficiently understands* > *the highlighted portion of the following definition* > > Computable functions are the formalized analogue of the > intuitive notion of algorithms, in the sense that a > function is computable if there exists an algorithm > that can do the job of the function, i.e. > > *given an input of the function domain* > *it can return the corresponding output* > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function > > But only if the function is, in fact, computable. Since Halting isn't, you can't use that fact.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-25 21:05 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met |
| Message-ID | <v5ft1p$1uc3o$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335995 |
On 6/25/2024 8:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/25/24 1:45 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/25/2024 9:46 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> Hi, Ben. >>> >>> Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> wrote: >>>> Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes: >>> >>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 6/25/2024 4:22 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>> Am Sat, 22 Jun 2024 13:47:24 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>> On 6/22/2024 1:39 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>> Op 21.jun.2024 om 15:21 schreef olcott: >>> >>>>>>>> When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct emulation >>>>>>>> is the >>>>>>>> semantics of the x86 programming language then we see that when >>>>>>>> DDD is >>>>>>>> correctly emulated by H0 that its call to H0(DDD) cannot possibly >>>>>>>> return. >>>>>>> Yes. Which is wrong, because H0 should terminate. >>> >>>>> [ .... ] >>> >>>>>> The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated >>>>>> by H0 cannot possibly return. >>> >>>>>> Until you acknowledge this is true, this is the >>>>>> only thing that I am willing to talk to you about. >>> >>>>> I think you are talking at cross purposes. Joes's point is that H0 >>>>> should terminate because it's a decider. You're saying that when >>>>> H0 is >>>>> "correctly" emulating, it won't terminate. I don't recall seeing >>>>> anybody >>>>> arguing against that. >>> >>>>> So you're saying, in effect, H0 is not a decider. I don't think >>>>> anybody >>>>> else would argue against that, either. >>> >>>> He's been making exactly the same nonsense argument for years. It >>>> became crystal clear a little over three years ago when he made the >>>> mistake of posting the pseudo-code for H -- a step by step simulator >>>> that stopped simulating (famously on line 15) when some pattern was >>>> detected. He declared false (not halting) to be the correct result for >>>> the halting computation H(H_Hat(), H_Hat()) because of what H(H_Hat(), >>>> H_Hat()) would do "if line 15 were commented out"! >>> >>>> PO does occasionally make it clear what the shell game is. >>> >>> I think it's important for (relative) newcomers to the newsgroup to >>> become aware of this. Each one of them is trying to help PO improve his >>> level of learning. They will eventually give up, as you and I have >>> done, recognising (as Mike Terry, in particular, has done) that >>> enriching PO's intellect is a quite impossible task. >>> >>> What's the betting he'll respond to this post with his usual short >>> sequence of x86 assembly code together with a demand to recognise >>> something or other as non-terminating? >>> >>>> -- >>>> Ben. >>> >> >> <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> >> >> 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. >> > >> > He knows and accepts that P(P) actually does stop. The >> > wrong answer is justified by what would happen if H >> > (and hence a different P) where not what they actually are. >> > >> >> Ben thinks that I tricked professor Sipser into agreeing >> with something that he did not fully understand. >> >> *The real issue is that no one here sufficiently understands* >> *the highlighted portion of the following definition* >> >> Computable functions are the formalized analogue of the >> intuitive notion of algorithms, in the sense that a >> function is computable if there exists an algorithm >> that can do the job of the function, i.e. >> >> *given an input of the function domain* >> *it can return the corresponding output* >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function >> >> > > But only if the function is, in fact, computable. > > Since Halting isn't, you can't use that fact. If I ask you: What time is it? and you do not tell me the answer to the question hidden in my mind "What did you have for dinner?" We cannot say that you provided the wrong answer when you tell me what time it is. When we ask H to tell us whether its actual input halts H can only answer that P correctly simulated by H will not halt. H cannot answer the question hidden in your mind. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-25 22:23 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met |
| Message-ID | <v5fu24$14bcn$2@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335999 |
On 6/25/24 10:05 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/25/2024 8:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/25/24 1:45 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/25/2024 9:46 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>> Hi, Ben. >>>> >>>> Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> wrote: >>>>> Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes: >>>> >>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/25/2024 4:22 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>> Am Sat, 22 Jun 2024 13:47:24 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>> On 6/22/2024 1:39 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Op 21.jun.2024 om 15:21 schreef olcott: >>>> >>>>>>>>> When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct emulation >>>>>>>>> is the >>>>>>>>> semantics of the x86 programming language then we see that when >>>>>>>>> DDD is >>>>>>>>> correctly emulated by H0 that its call to H0(DDD) cannot possibly >>>>>>>>> return. >>>>>>>> Yes. Which is wrong, because H0 should terminate. >>>> >>>>>> [ .... ] >>>> >>>>>>> The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated >>>>>>> by H0 cannot possibly return. >>>> >>>>>>> Until you acknowledge this is true, this is the >>>>>>> only thing that I am willing to talk to you about. >>>> >>>>>> I think you are talking at cross purposes. Joes's point is that H0 >>>>>> should terminate because it's a decider. You're saying that when >>>>>> H0 is >>>>>> "correctly" emulating, it won't terminate. I don't recall seeing >>>>>> anybody >>>>>> arguing against that. >>>> >>>>>> So you're saying, in effect, H0 is not a decider. I don't think >>>>>> anybody >>>>>> else would argue against that, either. >>>> >>>>> He's been making exactly the same nonsense argument for years. It >>>>> became crystal clear a little over three years ago when he made the >>>>> mistake of posting the pseudo-code for H -- a step by step simulator >>>>> that stopped simulating (famously on line 15) when some pattern was >>>>> detected. He declared false (not halting) to be the correct result >>>>> for >>>>> the halting computation H(H_Hat(), H_Hat()) because of what H(H_Hat(), >>>>> H_Hat()) would do "if line 15 were commented out"! >>>> >>>>> PO does occasionally make it clear what the shell game is. >>>> >>>> I think it's important for (relative) newcomers to the newsgroup to >>>> become aware of this. Each one of them is trying to help PO improve >>>> his >>>> level of learning. They will eventually give up, as you and I have >>>> done, recognising (as Mike Terry, in particular, has done) that >>>> enriching PO's intellect is a quite impossible task. >>>> >>>> What's the betting he'll respond to this post with his usual short >>>> sequence of x86 assembly code together with a demand to recognise >>>> something or other as non-terminating? >>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Ben. >>>> >>> >>> <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> >>> >>> 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. >>> > >>> > He knows and accepts that P(P) actually does stop. The >>> > wrong answer is justified by what would happen if H >>> > (and hence a different P) where not what they actually are. >>> > >>> >>> Ben thinks that I tricked professor Sipser into agreeing >>> with something that he did not fully understand. >>> >>> *The real issue is that no one here sufficiently understands* >>> *the highlighted portion of the following definition* >>> >>> Computable functions are the formalized analogue of the >>> intuitive notion of algorithms, in the sense that a >>> function is computable if there exists an algorithm >>> that can do the job of the function, i.e. >>> >>> *given an input of the function domain* >>> *it can return the corresponding output* >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function >>> >>> >> >> But only if the function is, in fact, computable. >> >> Since Halting isn't, you can't use that fact. > > If I ask you: What time is it? > and you do not tell me the answer to the question hidden > in my mind "What did you have for dinner?" We cannot say > that you provided the wrong answer when you tell me what > time it is. Because I answered the actual question. Just like the "Halt Decider" needs to answer the "Halt Decider Question" and not answer about POOP. > > When we ask H to tell us whether its actual input halts > H can only answer that P correctly simulated by H will not halt. > H cannot answer the question hidden in your mind. > Then you are just admitting that it can't be a Halt Decider. If it isn't what the definition requires, it just isn't one.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-25 21:29 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met |
| Message-ID | <v5fuf7$1up2o$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #336004 |
On 6/25/2024 9:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/25/24 10:05 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/25/2024 8:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/25/24 1:45 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/25/2024 9:46 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>> Hi, Ben. >>>>> >>>>> Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> wrote: >>>>>> Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes: >>>>> >>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/25/2024 4:22 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>> Am Sat, 22 Jun 2024 13:47:24 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/22/2024 1:39 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Op 21.jun.2024 om 15:21 schreef olcott: >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct emulation >>>>>>>>>> is the >>>>>>>>>> semantics of the x86 programming language then we see that >>>>>>>>>> when DDD is >>>>>>>>>> correctly emulated by H0 that its call to H0(DDD) cannot possibly >>>>>>>>>> return. >>>>>>>>> Yes. Which is wrong, because H0 should terminate. >>>>> >>>>>>> [ .... ] >>>>> >>>>>>>> The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated >>>>>>>> by H0 cannot possibly return. >>>>> >>>>>>>> Until you acknowledge this is true, this is the >>>>>>>> only thing that I am willing to talk to you about. >>>>> >>>>>>> I think you are talking at cross purposes. Joes's point is that H0 >>>>>>> should terminate because it's a decider. You're saying that when >>>>>>> H0 is >>>>>>> "correctly" emulating, it won't terminate. I don't recall seeing >>>>>>> anybody >>>>>>> arguing against that. >>>>> >>>>>>> So you're saying, in effect, H0 is not a decider. I don't think >>>>>>> anybody >>>>>>> else would argue against that, either. >>>>> >>>>>> He's been making exactly the same nonsense argument for years. It >>>>>> became crystal clear a little over three years ago when he made the >>>>>> mistake of posting the pseudo-code for H -- a step by step simulator >>>>>> that stopped simulating (famously on line 15) when some pattern was >>>>>> detected. He declared false (not halting) to be the correct >>>>>> result for >>>>>> the halting computation H(H_Hat(), H_Hat()) because of what >>>>>> H(H_Hat(), >>>>>> H_Hat()) would do "if line 15 were commented out"! >>>>> >>>>>> PO does occasionally make it clear what the shell game is. >>>>> >>>>> I think it's important for (relative) newcomers to the newsgroup to >>>>> become aware of this. Each one of them is trying to help PO >>>>> improve his >>>>> level of learning. They will eventually give up, as you and I have >>>>> done, recognising (as Mike Terry, in particular, has done) that >>>>> enriching PO's intellect is a quite impossible task. >>>>> >>>>> What's the betting he'll respond to this post with his usual short >>>>> sequence of x86 assembly code together with a demand to recognise >>>>> something or other as non-terminating? >>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Ben. >>>>> >>>> >>>> <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> >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> > >>>> > He knows and accepts that P(P) actually does stop. The >>>> > wrong answer is justified by what would happen if H >>>> > (and hence a different P) where not what they actually are. >>>> > >>>> >>>> Ben thinks that I tricked professor Sipser into agreeing >>>> with something that he did not fully understand. >>>> >>>> *The real issue is that no one here sufficiently understands* >>>> *the highlighted portion of the following definition* >>>> >>>> Computable functions are the formalized analogue of the >>>> intuitive notion of algorithms, in the sense that a >>>> function is computable if there exists an algorithm >>>> that can do the job of the function, i.e. >>>> >>>> *given an input of the function domain* >>>> *it can return the corresponding output* >>>> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function >>>> >>>> >>> >>> But only if the function is, in fact, computable. >>> >>> Since Halting isn't, you can't use that fact. >> >> If I ask you: What time is it? >> and you do not tell me the answer to the question hidden >> in my mind "What did you have for dinner?" We cannot say >> that you provided the wrong answer when you tell me what >> time it is. > > Because I answered the actual question. > > Just like the "Halt Decider" needs to answer the "Halt Decider Question" > and not answer about POOP. > >> >> When we ask H to tell us whether its actual input halts >> H can only answer that P correctly simulated by H will not halt. >> H cannot answer the question hidden in your mind. >> > > Then you are just admitting that it can't be a Halt Decider. > > If it isn't what the definition requires, it just isn't one. > Yes and everyone knows that computer scientists are much more infallible than God thus cannot possibly ever make a definition that is incoherent in ways that these 100% infallible computer scientists never noticed. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-25 22:55 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met |
| Message-ID | <v5fvvk$14bcn$4@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #336005 |
On 6/25/24 10:29 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/25/2024 9:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/25/24 10:05 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/25/2024 8:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/25/24 1:45 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/25/2024 9:46 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>> Hi, Ben. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> wrote: >>>>>>> Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2024 4:22 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Am Sat, 22 Jun 2024 13:47:24 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/22/2024 1:39 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Op 21.jun.2024 om 15:21 schreef olcott: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct >>>>>>>>>>> emulation is the >>>>>>>>>>> semantics of the x86 programming language then we see that >>>>>>>>>>> when DDD is >>>>>>>>>>> correctly emulated by H0 that its call to H0(DDD) cannot >>>>>>>>>>> possibly >>>>>>>>>>> return. >>>>>>>>>> Yes. Which is wrong, because H0 should terminate. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> [ .... ] >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated >>>>>>>>> by H0 cannot possibly return. >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Until you acknowledge this is true, this is the >>>>>>>>> only thing that I am willing to talk to you about. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think you are talking at cross purposes. Joes's point is that H0 >>>>>>>> should terminate because it's a decider. You're saying that >>>>>>>> when H0 is >>>>>>>> "correctly" emulating, it won't terminate. I don't recall >>>>>>>> seeing anybody >>>>>>>> arguing against that. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> So you're saying, in effect, H0 is not a decider. I don't think >>>>>>>> anybody >>>>>>>> else would argue against that, either. >>>>>> >>>>>>> He's been making exactly the same nonsense argument for years. It >>>>>>> became crystal clear a little over three years ago when he made the >>>>>>> mistake of posting the pseudo-code for H -- a step by step simulator >>>>>>> that stopped simulating (famously on line 15) when some pattern was >>>>>>> detected. He declared false (not halting) to be the correct >>>>>>> result for >>>>>>> the halting computation H(H_Hat(), H_Hat()) because of what >>>>>>> H(H_Hat(), >>>>>>> H_Hat()) would do "if line 15 were commented out"! >>>>>> >>>>>>> PO does occasionally make it clear what the shell game is. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think it's important for (relative) newcomers to the newsgroup to >>>>>> become aware of this. Each one of them is trying to help PO >>>>>> improve his >>>>>> level of learning. They will eventually give up, as you and I have >>>>>> done, recognising (as Mike Terry, in particular, has done) that >>>>>> enriching PO's intellect is a quite impossible task. >>>>>> >>>>>> What's the betting he'll respond to this post with his usual short >>>>>> sequence of x86 assembly code together with a demand to recognise >>>>>> something or other as non-terminating? >>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Ben. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> <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> >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> > >>>>> > He knows and accepts that P(P) actually does stop. The >>>>> > wrong answer is justified by what would happen if H >>>>> > (and hence a different P) where not what they actually are. >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> Ben thinks that I tricked professor Sipser into agreeing >>>>> with something that he did not fully understand. >>>>> >>>>> *The real issue is that no one here sufficiently understands* >>>>> *the highlighted portion of the following definition* >>>>> >>>>> Computable functions are the formalized analogue of the >>>>> intuitive notion of algorithms, in the sense that a >>>>> function is computable if there exists an algorithm >>>>> that can do the job of the function, i.e. >>>>> >>>>> *given an input of the function domain* >>>>> *it can return the corresponding output* >>>>> >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> But only if the function is, in fact, computable. >>>> >>>> Since Halting isn't, you can't use that fact. >>> >>> If I ask you: What time is it? >>> and you do not tell me the answer to the question hidden >>> in my mind "What did you have for dinner?" We cannot say >>> that you provided the wrong answer when you tell me what >>> time it is. >> >> Because I answered the actual question. >> >> Just like the "Halt Decider" needs to answer the "Halt Decider >> Question" and not answer about POOP. >> >>> >>> When we ask H to tell us whether its actual input halts >>> H can only answer that P correctly simulated by H will not halt. >>> H cannot answer the question hidden in your mind. >>> >> >> Then you are just admitting that it can't be a Halt Decider. >> >> If it isn't what the definition requires, it just isn't one. >> > > Yes and everyone knows that computer scientists are much > more infallible than God thus cannot possibly ever make > a definition that is incoherent in ways that these 100% > infallible computer scientists never noticed. > Except you can't show that the definition IS incoherent, just that *YOU* can't understand it. That is YOUR problem, not the problem of the definition.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-25 22:29 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met |
| Message-ID | <v5g1ue$1v8bm$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #336007 |
On 6/25/2024 9:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/25/24 10:29 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/25/2024 9:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/25/24 10:05 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/25/2024 8:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/25/24 1:45 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/25/2024 9:46 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>> Hi, Ben. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> wrote: >>>>>>>> Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2024 4:22 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Am Sat, 22 Jun 2024 13:47:24 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/22/2024 1:39 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 21.jun.2024 om 15:21 schreef olcott: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct >>>>>>>>>>>> emulation is the >>>>>>>>>>>> semantics of the x86 programming language then we see that >>>>>>>>>>>> when DDD is >>>>>>>>>>>> correctly emulated by H0 that its call to H0(DDD) cannot >>>>>>>>>>>> possibly >>>>>>>>>>>> return. >>>>>>>>>>> Yes. Which is wrong, because H0 should terminate. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [ .... ] >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated >>>>>>>>>> by H0 cannot possibly return. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Until you acknowledge this is true, this is the >>>>>>>>>> only thing that I am willing to talk to you about. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think you are talking at cross purposes. Joes's point is >>>>>>>>> that H0 >>>>>>>>> should terminate because it's a decider. You're saying that >>>>>>>>> when H0 is >>>>>>>>> "correctly" emulating, it won't terminate. I don't recall >>>>>>>>> seeing anybody >>>>>>>>> arguing against that. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So you're saying, in effect, H0 is not a decider. I don't >>>>>>>>> think anybody >>>>>>>>> else would argue against that, either. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> He's been making exactly the same nonsense argument for years. It >>>>>>>> became crystal clear a little over three years ago when he made the >>>>>>>> mistake of posting the pseudo-code for H -- a step by step >>>>>>>> simulator >>>>>>>> that stopped simulating (famously on line 15) when some pattern was >>>>>>>> detected. He declared false (not halting) to be the correct >>>>>>>> result for >>>>>>>> the halting computation H(H_Hat(), H_Hat()) because of what >>>>>>>> H(H_Hat(), >>>>>>>> H_Hat()) would do "if line 15 were commented out"! >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> PO does occasionally make it clear what the shell game is. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think it's important for (relative) newcomers to the newsgroup to >>>>>>> become aware of this. Each one of them is trying to help PO >>>>>>> improve his >>>>>>> level of learning. They will eventually give up, as you and I have >>>>>>> done, recognising (as Mike Terry, in particular, has done) that >>>>>>> enriching PO's intellect is a quite impossible task. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What's the betting he'll respond to this post with his usual short >>>>>>> sequence of x86 assembly code together with a demand to recognise >>>>>>> something or other as non-terminating? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Ben. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> <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> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > He knows and accepts that P(P) actually does stop. The >>>>>> > wrong answer is justified by what would happen if H >>>>>> > (and hence a different P) where not what they actually are. >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> Ben thinks that I tricked professor Sipser into agreeing >>>>>> with something that he did not fully understand. >>>>>> >>>>>> *The real issue is that no one here sufficiently understands* >>>>>> *the highlighted portion of the following definition* >>>>>> >>>>>> Computable functions are the formalized analogue of the >>>>>> intuitive notion of algorithms, in the sense that a >>>>>> function is computable if there exists an algorithm >>>>>> that can do the job of the function, i.e. >>>>>> >>>>>> *given an input of the function domain* >>>>>> *it can return the corresponding output* >>>>>> >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> But only if the function is, in fact, computable. >>>>> >>>>> Since Halting isn't, you can't use that fact. >>>> >>>> If I ask you: What time is it? >>>> and you do not tell me the answer to the question hidden >>>> in my mind "What did you have for dinner?" We cannot say >>>> that you provided the wrong answer when you tell me what >>>> time it is. >>> >>> Because I answered the actual question. >>> >>> Just like the "Halt Decider" needs to answer the "Halt Decider >>> Question" and not answer about POOP. >>> >>>> >>>> When we ask H to tell us whether its actual input halts >>>> H can only answer that P correctly simulated by H will not halt. >>>> H cannot answer the question hidden in your mind. >>>> >>> >>> Then you are just admitting that it can't be a Halt Decider. >>> >>> If it isn't what the definition requires, it just isn't one. >>> >> >> Yes and everyone knows that computer scientists are much >> more infallible than God thus cannot possibly ever make >> a definition that is incoherent in ways that these 100% >> infallible computer scientists never noticed. >> > > Except you can't show that the definition IS incoherent, In a way that your limited understanding can comprehend. You are so sure that I must be wrong that you cannot possibly pay close enough attention to the exact words that I say. My point is entirely proven by how a set of finite string transformations map one finite string to another. > just that *YOU* > can't understand it. > > That is YOUR problem, not the problem of the definition. > > > -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-25 23:35 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met |
| Message-ID | <v5g29u$14bcm$11@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #336009 |
On 6/25/24 11:29 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/25/2024 9:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/25/24 10:29 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/25/2024 9:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/25/24 10:05 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/25/2024 8:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/25/24 1:45 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/25/2024 9:46 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>> Hi, Ben. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2024 4:22 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Am Sat, 22 Jun 2024 13:47:24 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/22/2024 1:39 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 21.jun.2024 om 15:21 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct >>>>>>>>>>>>> emulation is the >>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics of the x86 programming language then we see that >>>>>>>>>>>>> when DDD is >>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly emulated by H0 that its call to H0(DDD) cannot >>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly >>>>>>>>>>>>> return. >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. Which is wrong, because H0 should terminate. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> [ .... ] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated >>>>>>>>>>> by H0 cannot possibly return. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Until you acknowledge this is true, this is the >>>>>>>>>>> only thing that I am willing to talk to you about. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I think you are talking at cross purposes. Joes's point is >>>>>>>>>> that H0 >>>>>>>>>> should terminate because it's a decider. You're saying that >>>>>>>>>> when H0 is >>>>>>>>>> "correctly" emulating, it won't terminate. I don't recall >>>>>>>>>> seeing anybody >>>>>>>>>> arguing against that. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So you're saying, in effect, H0 is not a decider. I don't >>>>>>>>>> think anybody >>>>>>>>>> else would argue against that, either. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> He's been making exactly the same nonsense argument for years. It >>>>>>>>> became crystal clear a little over three years ago when he made >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> mistake of posting the pseudo-code for H -- a step by step >>>>>>>>> simulator >>>>>>>>> that stopped simulating (famously on line 15) when some pattern >>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>> detected. He declared false (not halting) to be the correct >>>>>>>>> result for >>>>>>>>> the halting computation H(H_Hat(), H_Hat()) because of what >>>>>>>>> H(H_Hat(), >>>>>>>>> H_Hat()) would do "if line 15 were commented out"! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> PO does occasionally make it clear what the shell game is. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think it's important for (relative) newcomers to the newsgroup to >>>>>>>> become aware of this. Each one of them is trying to help PO >>>>>>>> improve his >>>>>>>> level of learning. They will eventually give up, as you and I have >>>>>>>> done, recognising (as Mike Terry, in particular, has done) that >>>>>>>> enriching PO's intellect is a quite impossible task. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What's the betting he'll respond to this post with his usual short >>>>>>>> sequence of x86 assembly code together with a demand to recognise >>>>>>>> something or other as non-terminating? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> Ben. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <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> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > He knows and accepts that P(P) actually does stop. The >>>>>>> > wrong answer is justified by what would happen if H >>>>>>> > (and hence a different P) where not what they actually are. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ben thinks that I tricked professor Sipser into agreeing >>>>>>> with something that he did not fully understand. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *The real issue is that no one here sufficiently understands* >>>>>>> *the highlighted portion of the following definition* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Computable functions are the formalized analogue of the >>>>>>> intuitive notion of algorithms, in the sense that a >>>>>>> function is computable if there exists an algorithm >>>>>>> that can do the job of the function, i.e. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *given an input of the function domain* >>>>>>> *it can return the corresponding output* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> But only if the function is, in fact, computable. >>>>>> >>>>>> Since Halting isn't, you can't use that fact. >>>>> >>>>> If I ask you: What time is it? >>>>> and you do not tell me the answer to the question hidden >>>>> in my mind "What did you have for dinner?" We cannot say >>>>> that you provided the wrong answer when you tell me what >>>>> time it is. >>>> >>>> Because I answered the actual question. >>>> >>>> Just like the "Halt Decider" needs to answer the "Halt Decider >>>> Question" and not answer about POOP. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> When we ask H to tell us whether its actual input halts >>>>> H can only answer that P correctly simulated by H will not halt. >>>>> H cannot answer the question hidden in your mind. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Then you are just admitting that it can't be a Halt Decider. >>>> >>>> If it isn't what the definition requires, it just isn't one. >>>> >>> >>> Yes and everyone knows that computer scientists are much >>> more infallible than God thus cannot possibly ever make >>> a definition that is incoherent in ways that these 100% >>> infallible computer scientists never noticed. >>> >> >> Except you can't show that the definition IS incoherent, > > In a way that your limited understanding can comprehend. > You are so sure that I must be wrong that you cannot possibly > pay close enough attention to the exact words that I say. > > My point is entirely proven by how a set of finite string > transformations map one finite string to another. Nope. You ASSUME the answer to try to prove it. The problem seems to be that you don't understand what it means for the decider to try to compute the results of a "mapping". That mapping is defined, not by a set of finite transformations, but by a set of definition. That it isn't computable is perfectly fine, and in fact, MOST mappings that could be defined will turn out uncomputable as there is an order of magnatude more mappings than machines to try to compute them. > >> just that *YOU* can't understand it. >> >> That is YOUR problem, not the problem of the definition. >> >> >> >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-25 22:42 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met |
| Message-ID | <v5g2nd$1v8bm$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #336011 |
On 6/25/2024 10:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/25/24 11:29 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/25/2024 9:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/25/24 10:29 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/25/2024 9:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/25/24 10:05 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/25/2024 8:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/25/24 1:45 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/25/2024 9:46 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>>> Hi, Ben. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2024 4:22 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Sat, 22 Jun 2024 13:47:24 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/22/2024 1:39 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 21.jun.2024 om 15:21 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct >>>>>>>>>>>>>> emulation is the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics of the x86 programming language then we see that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> when DDD is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly emulated by H0 that its call to H0(DDD) cannot >>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly >>>>>>>>>>>>>> return. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. Which is wrong, because H0 should terminate. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> [ .... ] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated >>>>>>>>>>>> by H0 cannot possibly return. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Until you acknowledge this is true, this is the >>>>>>>>>>>> only thing that I am willing to talk to you about. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I think you are talking at cross purposes. Joes's point is >>>>>>>>>>> that H0 >>>>>>>>>>> should terminate because it's a decider. You're saying that >>>>>>>>>>> when H0 is >>>>>>>>>>> "correctly" emulating, it won't terminate. I don't recall >>>>>>>>>>> seeing anybody >>>>>>>>>>> arguing against that. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So you're saying, in effect, H0 is not a decider. I don't >>>>>>>>>>> think anybody >>>>>>>>>>> else would argue against that, either. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> He's been making exactly the same nonsense argument for >>>>>>>>>> years. It >>>>>>>>>> became crystal clear a little over three years ago when he >>>>>>>>>> made the >>>>>>>>>> mistake of posting the pseudo-code for H -- a step by step >>>>>>>>>> simulator >>>>>>>>>> that stopped simulating (famously on line 15) when some >>>>>>>>>> pattern was >>>>>>>>>> detected. He declared false (not halting) to be the correct >>>>>>>>>> result for >>>>>>>>>> the halting computation H(H_Hat(), H_Hat()) because of what >>>>>>>>>> H(H_Hat(), >>>>>>>>>> H_Hat()) would do "if line 15 were commented out"! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> PO does occasionally make it clear what the shell game is. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think it's important for (relative) newcomers to the >>>>>>>>> newsgroup to >>>>>>>>> become aware of this. Each one of them is trying to help PO >>>>>>>>> improve his >>>>>>>>> level of learning. They will eventually give up, as you and I >>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>> done, recognising (as Mike Terry, in particular, has done) that >>>>>>>>> enriching PO's intellect is a quite impossible task. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What's the betting he'll respond to this post with his usual short >>>>>>>>> sequence of x86 assembly code together with a demand to recognise >>>>>>>>> something or other as non-terminating? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> Ben. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <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> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > He knows and accepts that P(P) actually does stop. The >>>>>>>> > wrong answer is justified by what would happen if H >>>>>>>> > (and hence a different P) where not what they actually are. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ben thinks that I tricked professor Sipser into agreeing >>>>>>>> with something that he did not fully understand. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *The real issue is that no one here sufficiently understands* >>>>>>>> *the highlighted portion of the following definition* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Computable functions are the formalized analogue of the >>>>>>>> intuitive notion of algorithms, in the sense that a >>>>>>>> function is computable if there exists an algorithm >>>>>>>> that can do the job of the function, i.e. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *given an input of the function domain* >>>>>>>> *it can return the corresponding output* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But only if the function is, in fact, computable. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Since Halting isn't, you can't use that fact. >>>>>> >>>>>> If I ask you: What time is it? >>>>>> and you do not tell me the answer to the question hidden >>>>>> in my mind "What did you have for dinner?" We cannot say >>>>>> that you provided the wrong answer when you tell me what >>>>>> time it is. >>>>> >>>>> Because I answered the actual question. >>>>> >>>>> Just like the "Halt Decider" needs to answer the "Halt Decider >>>>> Question" and not answer about POOP. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> When we ask H to tell us whether its actual input halts >>>>>> H can only answer that P correctly simulated by H will not halt. >>>>>> H cannot answer the question hidden in your mind. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Then you are just admitting that it can't be a Halt Decider. >>>>> >>>>> If it isn't what the definition requires, it just isn't one. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Yes and everyone knows that computer scientists are much >>>> more infallible than God thus cannot possibly ever make >>>> a definition that is incoherent in ways that these 100% >>>> infallible computer scientists never noticed. >>>> >>> >>> Except you can't show that the definition IS incoherent, >> >> In a way that your limited understanding can comprehend. >> You are so sure that I must be wrong that you cannot possibly >> pay close enough attention to the exact words that I say. >> >> My point is entirely proven by how a set of finite string >> transformations map one finite string to another. > > Nope. You ASSUME the answer to try to prove it. > > The problem seems to be that you don't understand what it means for the > decider to try to compute the results of a "mapping". > > That mapping is defined, not by a set of finite transformations, but by > a set of definition. That is not the way that it actually works. That the the way that lies are defined. Specify a conclusion and then if you can't prove it because the conclusion is false we blame you. The lack of finite string transformations from the definitions of the meaning of terms to X means that X is untrue. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-26 07:02 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met |
| Message-ID | <v5gsfv$15l89$2@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #336013 |
On 6/25/24 11:42 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/25/2024 10:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/25/24 11:29 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/25/2024 9:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/25/24 10:29 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/25/2024 9:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/25/24 10:05 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/25/2024 8:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/25/24 1:45 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2024 9:46 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Hi, Ben. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2024 4:22 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Sat, 22 Jun 2024 13:47:24 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/22/2024 1:39 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 21.jun.2024 om 15:21 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emulation is the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics of the x86 programming language then we see >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that when DDD is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly emulated by H0 that its call to H0(DDD) cannot >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. Which is wrong, because H0 should terminate. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> [ .... ] >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated >>>>>>>>>>>>> by H0 cannot possibly return. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Until you acknowledge this is true, this is the >>>>>>>>>>>>> only thing that I am willing to talk to you about. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I think you are talking at cross purposes. Joes's point is >>>>>>>>>>>> that H0 >>>>>>>>>>>> should terminate because it's a decider. You're saying that >>>>>>>>>>>> when H0 is >>>>>>>>>>>> "correctly" emulating, it won't terminate. I don't recall >>>>>>>>>>>> seeing anybody >>>>>>>>>>>> arguing against that. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> So you're saying, in effect, H0 is not a decider. I don't >>>>>>>>>>>> think anybody >>>>>>>>>>>> else would argue against that, either. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> He's been making exactly the same nonsense argument for >>>>>>>>>>> years. It >>>>>>>>>>> became crystal clear a little over three years ago when he >>>>>>>>>>> made the >>>>>>>>>>> mistake of posting the pseudo-code for H -- a step by step >>>>>>>>>>> simulator >>>>>>>>>>> that stopped simulating (famously on line 15) when some >>>>>>>>>>> pattern was >>>>>>>>>>> detected. He declared false (not halting) to be the correct >>>>>>>>>>> result for >>>>>>>>>>> the halting computation H(H_Hat(), H_Hat()) because of what >>>>>>>>>>> H(H_Hat(), >>>>>>>>>>> H_Hat()) would do "if line 15 were commented out"! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> PO does occasionally make it clear what the shell game is. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I think it's important for (relative) newcomers to the >>>>>>>>>> newsgroup to >>>>>>>>>> become aware of this. Each one of them is trying to help PO >>>>>>>>>> improve his >>>>>>>>>> level of learning. They will eventually give up, as you and I >>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>> done, recognising (as Mike Terry, in particular, has done) that >>>>>>>>>> enriching PO's intellect is a quite impossible task. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What's the betting he'll respond to this post with his usual >>>>>>>>>> short >>>>>>>>>> sequence of x86 assembly code together with a demand to recognise >>>>>>>>>> something or other as non-terminating? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> Ben. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <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> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > He knows and accepts that P(P) actually does stop. The >>>>>>>>> > wrong answer is justified by what would happen if H >>>>>>>>> > (and hence a different P) where not what they actually are. >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ben thinks that I tricked professor Sipser into agreeing >>>>>>>>> with something that he did not fully understand. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *The real issue is that no one here sufficiently understands* >>>>>>>>> *the highlighted portion of the following definition* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Computable functions are the formalized analogue of the >>>>>>>>> intuitive notion of algorithms, in the sense that a >>>>>>>>> function is computable if there exists an algorithm >>>>>>>>> that can do the job of the function, i.e. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *given an input of the function domain* >>>>>>>>> *it can return the corresponding output* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But only if the function is, in fact, computable. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Since Halting isn't, you can't use that fact. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If I ask you: What time is it? >>>>>>> and you do not tell me the answer to the question hidden >>>>>>> in my mind "What did you have for dinner?" We cannot say >>>>>>> that you provided the wrong answer when you tell me what >>>>>>> time it is. >>>>>> >>>>>> Because I answered the actual question. >>>>>> >>>>>> Just like the "Halt Decider" needs to answer the "Halt Decider >>>>>> Question" and not answer about POOP. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> When we ask H to tell us whether its actual input halts >>>>>>> H can only answer that P correctly simulated by H will not halt. >>>>>>> H cannot answer the question hidden in your mind. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Then you are just admitting that it can't be a Halt Decider. >>>>>> >>>>>> If it isn't what the definition requires, it just isn't one. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yes and everyone knows that computer scientists are much >>>>> more infallible than God thus cannot possibly ever make >>>>> a definition that is incoherent in ways that these 100% >>>>> infallible computer scientists never noticed. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Except you can't show that the definition IS incoherent, >>> >>> In a way that your limited understanding can comprehend. >>> You are so sure that I must be wrong that you cannot possibly >>> pay close enough attention to the exact words that I say. >>> >>> My point is entirely proven by how a set of finite string >>> transformations map one finite string to another. >> >> Nope. You ASSUME the answer to try to prove it. >> >> The problem seems to be that you don't understand what it means for >> the decider to try to compute the results of a "mapping". >> >> That mapping is defined, not by a set of finite transformations, but >> by a set of definition. > > That is not the way that it actually works. > That the the way that lies are defined. Source for you claim? Where is you finite set of steps from the truthmakers of the system to that claim? (Since you don't even KNOW most of the truth-makers of the system, you are going to have a problem there). > > Specify a conclusion and then if you can't prove it > because the conclusion is false we blame you. But it isn't false, it is a simple true statement from the definition of the problem. The mapping EXISTS, but can not be computed, and you proble is you just don't understand the definitions, because you made yourself ignorant. > > The lack of finite string transformations from the definitions > of the meaning of terms to X means that X is untrue. > Nope. True only requires a possibly INFINITE series of steps to show it. That exists, so the mapping exists.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-26 08:42 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met |
| Message-ID | <v5h5sd$24jbd$10@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #336018 |
On 6/26/2024 6:02 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/25/24 11:42 PM, olcott wrote: >> >> That is not the way that it actually works. >> That the the way that lies are defined. > > Source for you claim? > > Where is you finite set of steps from the truthmakers of the system to > that claim? > _DDD() [00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping [00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call H0(DDD) [0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04 [00002182] 5d pop ebp [00002183] c3 ret Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183] The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated by H0 cannot possibly return. When DDD is correctly emulated by an 86 emulator at machine address 00002175 this is the sequence defined by the semantics of the x86 language: *REPEAT UNTIL OUT-OF-MEMORY ERROR* [00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping [00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call H0(DDD) The finite string input to H0 DOES SPECIFY THAT THE CALL FROM DDD TO H0(DDD) CANNOT POSSIBLY RETURN IN EVERY SINGLE CASE WHERE DDD IS CORRECTLY EMULATED BY THE DIRECTLY EXECUTED H0 AND THIS H0 IS A PURE FUNCTION OF ITS INPUTS. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-26 19:41 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met |
| Message-ID | <v5i8v9$17ej1$2@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #336024 |
On 6/26/24 9:42 AM, olcott wrote: > On 6/26/2024 6:02 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/25/24 11:42 PM, olcott wrote: >>> >>> That is not the way that it actually works. >>> That the the way that lies are defined. >> >> Source for you claim? >> >> Where is you finite set of steps from the truthmakers of the system to >> that claim? >> > > _DDD() > [00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping > [00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping > [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD > [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call H0(DDD) > [0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04 > [00002182] 5d pop ebp > [00002183] c3 ret > Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183] > > The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated > by H0 cannot possibly return. Sure it can. I have shown an H0 that does so. And, if H0 aborts is emulation, it only did a PARTIAL emulation and can not make claims about the future correct emulation of that input. So, it can't says that the call to H0(DDD) can not return, only that it did not emulate that call to the point of possible return, > > When DDD is correctly emulated by an 86 emulator at > machine address 00002175 this is the sequence defined > by the semantics of the x86 language: > > *REPEAT UNTIL OUT-OF-MEMORY ERROR* > [00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping > [00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping > [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD > [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call H0(DDD) ABSOLUTELY NOI. The semantics of the x86 language say that the call 000015d2 MUST be followed by the emulation of the instruction at 000015d2, or the emulation must be TERMINATE TOTALLY due to unspecified code. IT CAN NOT just continue back at 00002172, as the instruction stream of the program won't get there. > > The finite string input to H0 DOES SPECIFY THAT THE CALL > FROM DDD TO H0(DDD) CANNOT POSSIBLY RETURN IN EVERY SINGLE > CASE WHERE DDD IS CORRECTLY EMULATED BY THE DIRECTLY EXECUTED > H0 AND THIS H0 IS A PURE FUNCTION OF ITS INPUTS. > > Nope. You are just proving you are just an ignorant pathological liar that doesn't undertstand what he is talking about. To you, INCORRECT things are "obviously correct", so you have a pathology about Truth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-26 18:46 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met |
| Message-ID | <v5i998$2cko8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #336032 |
On 6/26/2024 6:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/26/24 9:42 AM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/26/2024 6:02 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/25/24 11:42 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> >>>> That is not the way that it actually works. >>>> That the the way that lies are defined. >>> >>> Source for you claim? >>> >>> Where is you finite set of steps from the truthmakers of the system >>> to that claim? >>> >> >> _DDD() >> [00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping >> [00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping >> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD >> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call H0(DDD) >> [0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04 >> [00002182] 5d pop ebp >> [00002183] c3 ret >> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183] >> >> The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated >> by H0 cannot possibly return. > > Sure it can. I have shown an H0 that does so. > I already told you that example does not count. I can't keep repeating those details or others that so far have no idea what an x86 emulator is will be baffled beyond all hope of comprehension. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-26 19:55 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met |
| Message-ID | <v5i9ot$17ej0$3@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #336034 |
On 6/26/24 7:46 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/26/2024 6:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/26/24 9:42 AM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/26/2024 6:02 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/25/24 11:42 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> >>>>> That is not the way that it actually works. >>>>> That the the way that lies are defined. >>>> >>>> Source for you claim? >>>> >>>> Where is you finite set of steps from the truthmakers of the system >>>> to that claim? >>>> >>> >>> _DDD() >>> [00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping >>> [00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping >>> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD >>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call H0(DDD) >>> [0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04 >>> [00002182] 5d pop ebp >>> [00002183] c3 ret >>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183] >>> >>> The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated >>> by H0 cannot possibly return. >> >> Sure it can. I have shown an H0 that does so. >> > > I already told you that example does not count. > > I can't keep repeating those details or others > that so far have no idea what an x86 emulator is > will be baffled beyond all hope of comprehension. > WHy not? Yes, YOU NEED to repeat the detail, or accept that other details can be brought up too.. ALL your plans are to call you deciders halt deciders, and thus the ONLY interpreation of their behavior is that of the directly executed program they represent. You have sort of already admitted that as you say it is by the correct x86 semantics of the input, which is basically the same thing, as it doesn't allow the emulation to be aborteed, since x86 programs don't just randomly stop.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-26 19:20 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met |
| Message-ID | <v5ib7n$2cko8$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #336038 |
On 6/26/2024 6:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/26/24 7:46 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/26/2024 6:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/26/24 9:42 AM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/26/2024 6:02 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/25/24 11:42 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> That is not the way that it actually works. >>>>>> That the the way that lies are defined. >>>>> >>>>> Source for you claim? >>>>> >>>>> Where is you finite set of steps from the truthmakers of the system >>>>> to that claim? >>>>> >>>> >>>> _DDD() >>>> [00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping >>>> [00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping >>>> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD >>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call H0(DDD) >>>> [0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04 >>>> [00002182] 5d pop ebp >>>> [00002183] c3 ret >>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183] >>>> >>>> The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated >>>> by H0 cannot possibly return. >>> >>> Sure it can. I have shown an H0 that does so. >>> >> >> I already told you that example does not count. >> >> I can't keep repeating those details or others >> that so far have no idea what an x86 emulator is >> will be baffled beyond all hope of comprehension. >> > > WHy not? > We have already been over that you know that you cheated. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-26 20:42 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met |
| Message-ID | <v5ichc$17ej1$8@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #336040 |
On 6/26/24 8:20 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/26/2024 6:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/26/24 7:46 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/26/2024 6:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/26/24 9:42 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/26/2024 6:02 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/25/24 11:42 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That is not the way that it actually works. >>>>>>> That the the way that lies are defined. >>>>>> >>>>>> Source for you claim? >>>>>> >>>>>> Where is you finite set of steps from the truthmakers of the >>>>>> system to that claim? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _DDD() >>>>> [00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping >>>>> [00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping >>>>> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD >>>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call H0(DDD) >>>>> [0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04 >>>>> [00002182] 5d pop ebp >>>>> [00002183] c3 ret >>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183] >>>>> >>>>> The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated >>>>> by H0 cannot possibly return. >>>> >>>> Sure it can. I have shown an H0 that does so. >>>> >>> >>> I already told you that example does not count. >>> >>> I can't keep repeating those details or others >>> that so far have no idea what an x86 emulator is >>> will be baffled beyond all hope of comprehension. >>> >> >> WHy not? >> > > We have already been over that you know that you cheated. > Nope, since you didn't put in the rule, and if you had it would have shown that you lied, as if H0 is a pure function then the call to H0 emulated by H0 needs to have the same behaivor as the direct call to H0 by main. Since it doesn't, either H0 is incorrect, or you don't have that rule (and your claim about H0 is incorrect).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-27 02:15 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met |
| Message-ID | <5nSdnSkMN76jIOH7nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #336044 |
On 27/06/2024 01:42, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/26/24 8:20 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/26/2024 6:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/26/24 7:46 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/26/2024 6:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/26/24 9:42 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/26/2024 6:02 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/25/24 11:42 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That is not the way that it actually works. >>>>>>>> That the the way that lies are defined. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Source for you claim? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Where is you finite set of steps from the truthmakers of the system to that claim? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _DDD() >>>>>> [00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping >>>>>> [00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping >>>>>> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD >>>>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call H0(DDD) >>>>>> [0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04 >>>>>> [00002182] 5d pop ebp >>>>>> [00002183] c3 ret >>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183] >>>>>> >>>>>> The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated >>>>>> by H0 cannot possibly return. >>>>> >>>>> Sure it can. I have shown an H0 that does so. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I already told you that example does not count. >>>> >>>> I can't keep repeating those details or others >>>> that so far have no idea what an x86 emulator is >>>> will be baffled beyond all hope of comprehension. >>>> >>> >>> WHy not? >>> >> >> We have already been over that you know that you cheated. >> > > Nope, since you didn't put in the rule, and if you had it would have shown that you lied, as if H0 > is a pure function then the call to H0 emulated by H0 needs to have the same behaivor as the direct > call to H0 by main. Incidentally, the nonconformance you're referring to is shown explicitly in the "195 page trace" that PO linked to. [I.e. the simulated H does not correctly track the code path of the outer H.] Mike. > > Since it doesn't, either H0 is incorrect, or you don't have that rule (and your claim about H0 is > incorrect).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-27 02:30 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met |
| Message-ID | <yumdnWJaTZk7XeH7nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #336046 |
On 27/06/2024 02:15, Mike Terry wrote: > On 27/06/2024 01:42, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/26/24 8:20 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/26/2024 6:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/26/24 7:46 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/26/2024 6:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/26/24 9:42 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/26/2024 6:02 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/25/24 11:42 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That is not the way that it actually works. >>>>>>>>> That the the way that lies are defined. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Source for you claim? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Where is you finite set of steps from the truthmakers of the system to that claim? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _DDD() >>>>>>> [00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping >>>>>>> [00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping >>>>>>> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD >>>>>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call H0(DDD) >>>>>>> [0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04 >>>>>>> [00002182] 5d pop ebp >>>>>>> [00002183] c3 ret >>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated >>>>>>> by H0 cannot possibly return. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sure it can. I have shown an H0 that does so. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I already told you that example does not count. >>>>> >>>>> I can't keep repeating those details or others >>>>> that so far have no idea what an x86 emulator is >>>>> will be baffled beyond all hope of comprehension. >>>>> >>>> >>>> WHy not? >>>> >>> >>> We have already been over that you know that you cheated. >>> >> >> Nope, since you didn't put in the rule, and if you had it would have shown that you lied, as if H0 >> is a pure function then the call to H0 emulated by H0 needs to have the same behaivor as the >> direct call to H0 by main. > > Incidentally, the nonconformance you're referring to is shown explicitly in the "195 page trace" > that PO linked to. [I.e. the simulated H does not correctly track the code path of the outer H.] I suppose I should have made clear, that's not simply due to the simulated H being aborted. There is an instruction in H: [actually, in Init_Halts_HH()] [000012e4] 753b jnz 00001321 and in outer H control proceeds to 000012e6 [i.e. branch not taken], whilein simulated H control proceeds to 00001321 [i.e. branch taken] Mike.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-26 21:52 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met |
| Message-ID | <v5igku$17ej0$5@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #336048 |
On 6/26/24 9:30 PM, Mike Terry wrote: > On 27/06/2024 02:15, Mike Terry wrote: >> On 27/06/2024 01:42, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/26/24 8:20 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/26/2024 6:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/26/24 7:46 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/26/2024 6:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/26/24 9:42 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/26/2024 6:02 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/25/24 11:42 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That is not the way that it actually works. >>>>>>>>>> That the the way that lies are defined. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Source for you claim? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Where is you finite set of steps from the truthmakers of the >>>>>>>>> system to that claim? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _DDD() >>>>>>>> [00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping >>>>>>>> [00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping >>>>>>>> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD >>>>>>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call H0(DDD) >>>>>>>> [0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04 >>>>>>>> [00002182] 5d pop ebp >>>>>>>> [00002183] c3 ret >>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated >>>>>>>> by H0 cannot possibly return. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sure it can. I have shown an H0 that does so. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I already told you that example does not count. >>>>>> >>>>>> I can't keep repeating those details or others >>>>>> that so far have no idea what an x86 emulator is >>>>>> will be baffled beyond all hope of comprehension. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> WHy not? >>>>> >>>> >>>> We have already been over that you know that you cheated. >>>> >>> >>> Nope, since you didn't put in the rule, and if you had it would have >>> shown that you lied, as if H0 is a pure function then the call to H0 >>> emulated by H0 needs to have the same behaivor as the direct call to >>> H0 by main. >> >> Incidentally, the nonconformance you're referring to is shown >> explicitly in the "195 page trace" that PO linked to. [I.e. the >> simulated H does not correctly track the code path of the outer H.] > > I suppose I should have made clear, that's not simply due to the > simulated H being aborted. There is an instruction in H: [actually, > in Init_Halts_HH()] > > [000012e4] 753b jnz 00001321 > > and in outer H control proceeds to 000012e6 [i.e. branch not taken], > whilein simulated H control proceeds to 00001321 [i.e. branch taken] > > > Mike. > Would need to look closer at the code, but I bet that the simulated machine is looking into the trace buffer to see if it is simulated or not. In effect, it is misusing static memory just like he says isn't allowed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-27 03:06 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met |
| Message-ID | <XpCdnbOhAMLeVOH7nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #336049 |
On 27/06/2024 02:52, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/26/24 9:30 PM, Mike Terry wrote: >> On 27/06/2024 02:15, Mike Terry wrote: >>> On 27/06/2024 01:42, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/26/24 8:20 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/26/2024 6:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/26/24 7:46 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/26/2024 6:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/26/24 9:42 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/26/2024 6:02 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/24 11:42 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> That is not the way that it actually works. >>>>>>>>>>> That the the way that lies are defined. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Source for you claim? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Where is you finite set of steps from the truthmakers of the system to that claim? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _DDD() >>>>>>>>> [00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping >>>>>>>>> [00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping >>>>>>>>> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD >>>>>>>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call H0(DDD) >>>>>>>>> [0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04 >>>>>>>>> [00002182] 5d pop ebp >>>>>>>>> [00002183] c3 ret >>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated >>>>>>>>> by H0 cannot possibly return. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sure it can. I have shown an H0 that does so. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I already told you that example does not count. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I can't keep repeating those details or others >>>>>>> that so far have no idea what an x86 emulator is >>>>>>> will be baffled beyond all hope of comprehension. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> WHy not? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> We have already been over that you know that you cheated. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Nope, since you didn't put in the rule, and if you had it would have shown that you lied, as if >>>> H0 is a pure function then the call to H0 emulated by H0 needs to have the same behaivor as the >>>> direct call to H0 by main. >>> >>> Incidentally, the nonconformance you're referring to is shown explicitly in the "195 page trace" >>> that PO linked to. [I.e. the simulated H does not correctly track the code path of the outer H.] >> >> I suppose I should have made clear, that's not simply due to the simulated H being aborted. There >> is an instruction in H: [actually, in Init_Halts_HH()] >> >> [000012e4] 753b jnz 00001321 >> >> and in outer H control proceeds to 000012e6 [i.e. branch not taken], >> whilein simulated H control proceeds to 00001321 [i.e. branch taken] >> >> >> Mike. >> > > Would need to look closer at the code, but I bet that the simulated machine is looking into the > trace buffer to see if it is simulated or not. Has PO published the C code for the trace? Anyhow, given that its in Init_Halts_HH(), I expect its a global area being initialised - probably the global trace table. > > In effect, it is misusing static memory just like he says isn't allowed. Right. Mike.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.logic
csiph-web