On 8/23/2024 4:07 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
joes <noreply@example.org> writes:
Am Wed, 21 Aug 2024 20:55:52 -0500 schrieb olcott:
Professor Sipser clearly agreed that an H that does a finite simulation >>>> of D is to predict the behavior of an unlimited simulation of D.
If the simulator *itself* would not abort. The H called by D is,
by construction, the same and *does* abort.
We don't really know what context Sipser was given. I got in touch at
the time so do I know he had enough context to know that PO's ideas were
"wacky" and that had agreed to what he considered a "minor remark".
Since PO considers his words finely crafted and key to his so-called
work I think it's clear that Sipser did not take the "minor remark" he
agreed to to mean what PO takes it to mean! My own take if that he
(Sipser) read it as a general remark about how to determine some cases,
i.e. that D names an input that H can partially simulate to determine
it's halting or otherwise. We all know or could construct some such
cases.
I suspect he was tricked because PO used H and D as the names without
making it clear that D was constructed from H in the usual way (Sipser
uses H and D in at least one of his proofs). Of course, he is clued in
enough know that, if D is indeed constructed from H like that, the
"minor remark" becomes true by being a hypothetical: if the moon is made
of cheese, the Martians can look forward to a fine fondue. But,
personally, I think the professor is more straight talking than that,
and he simply took as a method that can work for some inputs.
<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>
If professor Sipser agreed to this and it only works for
some inputs then his agreement would have been incorrect.
There was an 18 message exchange prior to this agreement.
I do not believe that Professor Sipser made a mistake
because it still seems to be a simple tautology to me.
That's
the only way is could be seen as a "minor remark" with being accused of
being disingenuous.
Ben saw this right away and it seems that most everyone else simplyI don’t think you understood him.
lied
about it.
I don't think PO even reads what people write. He certainly works hard
to avoid addressing any points made to him. I think it's true to say
that pretty much every paraphrase he attempts "X thinks ..." (usually
phrased as "so you are saying that black is white?") is garbage.
Understanding what other people say is low in his priorities since they
must be wrong anyway.
(I refuse to have anything more to do with PO directly after he was
unconscionably rude, but I do keep an eye out for my name in case he
continues to smear it.)
That people still disagree that a correct emulation
of N instructions of DDD according to the semantics
of the x86 language defines what a correct simulation
is still seems flat out dishonest to me.
In the case of DDD correctly emulated by HHH this does
require HHH to emulate itself emulating DDD exactly one
time before HHH sees the repeating pattern.
void DDD()
{
HHH(DDD);
}
machine stack stack machine assembly
address address data code language
======== ======== ======== ========= ============= [00002192][00103820][00000000] 55 push ebp [00002193][00103820][00000000] 8bec mov ebp,esp [00002195][0010381c][00002172] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD [0000219a][00103818][0000219f] e833f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
New slave_stack at:1038c4
Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:1138cc [00002172][001138bc][001138c0] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping
[00002173][001138bc][001138c0] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping
[00002175][001138b8][00002172] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD [0000217a][001138b4][0000217f] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
New slave_stack at:14e2ec
[00002172][0015e2e4][0015e2e8] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping
[00002173][0015e2e4][0015e2e8] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping
[00002175][0015e2e0][00002172] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD [0000217a][0015e2dc][0000217f] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
On 8/23/2024 4:07 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:That someone still refuses to see that skipping the last few
joes <noreply@example.org> writes:
Am Wed, 21 Aug 2024 20:55:52 -0500 schrieb olcott:
Professor Sipser clearly agreed that an H that does a finite simulation >>>> of D is to predict the behavior of an unlimited simulation of D.
If the simulator *itself* would not abort. The H called by D is,
by construction, the same and *does* abort.
We don't really know what context Sipser was given. I got in touch at
the time so do I know he had enough context to know that PO's ideas were
"wacky" and that had agreed to what he considered a "minor remark".
Since PO considers his words finely crafted and key to his so-called
work I think it's clear that Sipser did not take the "minor remark" he
agreed to to mean what PO takes it to mean! My own take if that he
(Sipser) read it as a general remark about how to determine some cases,
i.e. that D names an input that H can partially simulate to determine
it's halting or otherwise. We all know or could construct some such
cases.
I suspect he was tricked because PO used H and D as the names without
making it clear that D was constructed from H in the usual way (Sipser
uses H and D in at least one of his proofs). Of course, he is clued in
enough know that, if D is indeed constructed from H like that, the
"minor remark" becomes true by being a hypothetical: if the moon is made
of cheese, the Martians can look forward to a fine fondue. But,
personally, I think the professor is more straight talking than that,
and he simply took as a method that can work for some inputs.
<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>
If professor Sipser agreed to this and it only works for
some inputs then his agreement would have been incorrect.
There was an 18 message exchange prior to this agreement.
I do not believe that Professor Sipser made a mistake
because it still seems to be a simple tautology to me.
That's
the only way is could be seen as a "minor remark" with being accused of
being disingenuous.
Ben saw this right away and it seems that most everyone else simplyI don’t think you understood him.
lied
about it.
I don't think PO even reads what people write. He certainly works hard
to avoid addressing any points made to him. I think it's true to say
that pretty much every paraphrase he attempts "X thinks ..." (usually
phrased as "so you are saying that black is white?") is garbage.
Understanding what other people say is low in his priorities since they
must be wrong anyway.
(I refuse to have anything more to do with PO directly after he was
unconscionably rude, but I do keep an eye out for my name in case he
continues to smear it.)
That people still disagree that a correct emulation
of N instructions of DDD according to the semantics
of the x86 language defines what a correct simulation
is still seems flat out dishonest to me.
In the case of DDD correctly emulated by HHH this does
require HHH to emulate itself emulating DDD exactly one
time before HHH sees the repeating pattern.
On 8/25/2024 12:05 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 25.aug.2024 om 15:24 schreef olcott:
On 8/23/2024 4:07 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:That someone still refuses to see that skipping the last few
joes <noreply@example.org> writes:
Am Wed, 21 Aug 2024 20:55:52 -0500 schrieb olcott:
Professor Sipser clearly agreed that an H that does a finite
simulation
of D is to predict the behavior of an unlimited simulation of D.
If the simulator *itself* would not abort. The H called by D is,
by construction, the same and *does* abort.
We don't really know what context Sipser was given. I got in touch at >>>> the time so do I know he had enough context to know that PO's ideas
were
"wacky" and that had agreed to what he considered a "minor remark".
Since PO considers his words finely crafted and key to his so-called
work I think it's clear that Sipser did not take the "minor remark" he >>>> agreed to to mean what PO takes it to mean! My own take if that he
(Sipser) read it as a general remark about how to determine some cases, >>>> i.e. that D names an input that H can partially simulate to determine
it's halting or otherwise. We all know or could construct some such
cases.
I suspect he was tricked because PO used H and D as the names without
making it clear that D was constructed from H in the usual way (Sipser >>>> uses H and D in at least one of his proofs). Of course, he is clued in >>>> enough know that, if D is indeed constructed from H like that, the
"minor remark" becomes true by being a hypothetical: if the moon is
made
of cheese, the Martians can look forward to a fine fondue. But,
personally, I think the professor is more straight talking than that,
and he simply took as a method that can work for some inputs.
<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>
If professor Sipser agreed to this and it only works for
some inputs then his agreement would have been incorrect.
There was an 18 message exchange prior to this agreement.
I do not believe that Professor Sipser made a mistake
because it still seems to be a simple tautology to me.
That's
the only way is could be seen as a "minor remark" with being accused of >>>> being disingenuous.
Ben saw this right away and it seems that most everyone elseI don’t think you understood him.
simply lied
about it.
I don't think PO even reads what people write. He certainly works hard >>>> to avoid addressing any points made to him. I think it's true to say >>>> that pretty much every paraphrase he attempts "X thinks ..." (usually
phrased as "so you are saying that black is white?") is garbage.
Understanding what other people say is low in his priorities since they >>>> must be wrong anyway.
(I refuse to have anything more to do with PO directly after he was
unconscionably rude, but I do keep an eye out for my name in case he
continues to smear it.)
That people still disagree that a correct emulation
of N instructions of DDD according to the semantics
of the x86 language defines what a correct simulation
is still seems flat out dishonest to me.
instructions of a halting program is a violation of the semantics of
the x86 language seems dishonest to me, in particular when several
people pointed him to this error.
In the case of DDD correctly emulated by HHH this does
require HHH to emulate itself emulating DDD exactly one
time before HHH sees the repeating pattern.
A repeating, but not an infinite repeating pattern,
*D would never stop running unless aborted*
*D would never stop running unless aborted*
*D would never stop running unless aborted*
*D would never stop running unless aborted*
Are you just being dishonest?
because HHH is programmed to abort and halt after a few cycles,
*It never has been AFTER A FEW CYCLES*
*It has always been until a specific condition is met*
*until H correctly determines that its simulated*
*D would never stop running unless aborted*
Are you just being dishonest?
which the simulated HHH would do, too, if not aborted too soon (unless
cheating with the Root variable).
On 8/25/2024 12:05 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 25.aug.2024 om 15:24 schreef olcott:
On 8/23/2024 4:07 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:That someone still refuses to see that skipping the last few
joes <noreply@example.org> writes:
Am Wed, 21 Aug 2024 20:55:52 -0500 schrieb olcott:
Professor Sipser clearly agreed that an H that does a finite
simulation
of D is to predict the behavior of an unlimited simulation of D.
If the simulator *itself* would not abort. The H called by D is,
by construction, the same and *does* abort.
We don't really know what context Sipser was given. I got in touch at >>>> the time so do I know he had enough context to know that PO's ideas
were
"wacky" and that had agreed to what he considered a "minor remark".
Since PO considers his words finely crafted and key to his so-called
work I think it's clear that Sipser did not take the "minor remark" he >>>> agreed to to mean what PO takes it to mean! My own take if that he
(Sipser) read it as a general remark about how to determine some cases, >>>> i.e. that D names an input that H can partially simulate to determine
it's halting or otherwise. We all know or could construct some such
cases.
I suspect he was tricked because PO used H and D as the names without
making it clear that D was constructed from H in the usual way (Sipser >>>> uses H and D in at least one of his proofs). Of course, he is clued in >>>> enough know that, if D is indeed constructed from H like that, the
"minor remark" becomes true by being a hypothetical: if the moon is
made
of cheese, the Martians can look forward to a fine fondue. But,
personally, I think the professor is more straight talking than that,
and he simply took as a method that can work for some inputs.
<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>
If professor Sipser agreed to this and it only works for
some inputs then his agreement would have been incorrect.
There was an 18 message exchange prior to this agreement.
I do not believe that Professor Sipser made a mistake
because it still seems to be a simple tautology to me.
That's
the only way is could be seen as a "minor remark" with being accused of >>>> being disingenuous.
Ben saw this right away and it seems that most everyone elseI don’t think you understood him.
simply lied
about it.
I don't think PO even reads what people write. He certainly works hard >>>> to avoid addressing any points made to him. I think it's true to say >>>> that pretty much every paraphrase he attempts "X thinks ..." (usually
phrased as "so you are saying that black is white?") is garbage.
Understanding what other people say is low in his priorities since they >>>> must be wrong anyway.
(I refuse to have anything more to do with PO directly after he was
unconscionably rude, but I do keep an eye out for my name in case he
continues to smear it.)
That people still disagree that a correct emulation
of N instructions of DDD according to the semantics
of the x86 language defines what a correct simulation
is still seems flat out dishonest to me.
instructions of a halting program is a violation of the semantics of
the x86 language seems dishonest to me, in particular when several
people pointed him to this error.
In the case of DDD correctly emulated by HHH this does
require HHH to emulate itself emulating DDD exactly one
time before HHH sees the repeating pattern.
A repeating, but not an infinite repeating pattern,
*D would never stop running unless aborted*
*D would never stop running unless aborted*
*D would never stop running unless aborted*
*D would never stop running unless aborted*
Are you just being dishonest?
because HHH is programmed to abort and halt after a few cycles,
*It never has been AFTER A FEW CYCLES*
*It has always been until a specific condition is met*
*until H correctly determines that its simulated*
*D would never stop running unless aborted*
Are you just being dishonest?
which the simulated HHH would do, too, if not aborted too soon (unless
cheating with the Root variable).
On 8/25/2024 3:15 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 25.aug.2024 om 21:34 schreef olcott:
On 8/25/2024 12:05 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 25.aug.2024 om 15:24 schreef olcott:
On 8/23/2024 4:07 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:That someone still refuses to see that skipping the last few
joes <noreply@example.org> writes:
Am Wed, 21 Aug 2024 20:55:52 -0500 schrieb olcott:
Professor Sipser clearly agreed that an H that does a finiteIf the simulator *itself* would not abort. The H called by D is, >>>>>>> by construction, the same and *does* abort.
simulation
of D is to predict the behavior of an unlimited simulation of D. >>>>>>>
We don't really know what context Sipser was given. I got in
touch at
the time so do I know he had enough context to know that PO's
ideas were
"wacky" and that had agreed to what he considered a "minor remark". >>>>>>
Since PO considers his words finely crafted and key to his so-called >>>>>> work I think it's clear that Sipser did not take the "minor
remark" he
agreed to to mean what PO takes it to mean! My own take if that he >>>>>> (Sipser) read it as a general remark about how to determine some
cases,
i.e. that D names an input that H can partially simulate to determine >>>>>> it's halting or otherwise. We all know or could construct some such >>>>>> cases.
I suspect he was tricked because PO used H and D as the names without >>>>>> making it clear that D was constructed from H in the usual way
(Sipser
uses H and D in at least one of his proofs). Of course, he is
clued in
enough know that, if D is indeed constructed from H like that, the >>>>>> "minor remark" becomes true by being a hypothetical: if the moon
is made
of cheese, the Martians can look forward to a fine fondue. But,
personally, I think the professor is more straight talking than that, >>>>>> and he simply took as a method that can work for some inputs.
<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> >>>>>
If professor Sipser agreed to this and it only works for
some inputs then his agreement would have been incorrect.
There was an 18 message exchange prior to this agreement.
I do not believe that Professor Sipser made a mistake
because it still seems to be a simple tautology to me.
That's
the only way is could be seen as a "minor remark" with being
accused of
being disingenuous.
Ben saw this right away and it seems that most everyone elseI don’t think you understood him.
simply lied
about it.
I don't think PO even reads what people write. He certainly works >>>>>> hard
to avoid addressing any points made to him. I think it's true to say >>>>>> that pretty much every paraphrase he attempts "X thinks ..." (usually >>>>>> phrased as "so you are saying that black is white?") is garbage.
Understanding what other people say is low in his priorities since >>>>>> they
must be wrong anyway.
(I refuse to have anything more to do with PO directly after he was >>>>>> unconscionably rude, but I do keep an eye out for my name in case he >>>>>> continues to smear it.)
That people still disagree that a correct emulation
of N instructions of DDD according to the semantics
of the x86 language defines what a correct simulation
is still seems flat out dishonest to me.
instructions of a halting program is a violation of the semantics of
the x86 language seems dishonest to me, in particular when several
people pointed him to this error.
In the case of DDD correctly emulated by HHH this does
require HHH to emulate itself emulating DDD exactly one
time before HHH sees the repeating pattern.
A repeating, but not an infinite repeating pattern,
*D would never stop running unless aborted*
*D would never stop running unless aborted*
*D would never stop running unless aborted*
*D would never stop running unless aborted*
Are you just being dishonest?
Forget your dream of a non-aborting HHH. It does abort, so the
'unless' part makes it unnecessarily complicated. It stops running,
because it aborts.
You can't have a HHH that is aborted, when it does not perform the
abort itself.
Why don't you see that? Are you dishonest? It does abort and therefore
is does not repeat infinitely. Then it halts. It stops running. Are
you dishonest, or dreaming, or cheating?
because HHH is programmed to abort and halt after a few cycles,
*It never has been AFTER A FEW CYCLES*
*It has always been until a specific condition is met*
It is coded to abort when it sees this 'specific' condition (after a
few cycles) and then it halts.
I have corrected you on this too may times.
HALTS IS ONLY REACHING A FINAL HALT STATE
HALTS IS ONLY REACHING A FINAL HALT STATE
HALTS IS ONLY REACHING A FINAL HALT STATE
HALTS IS ONLY REACHING A FINAL HALT STATE
HALTS IS ONLY REACHING A FINAL HALT STATE
At this point you are written off as a liar.
On 8/25/2024 3:15 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 25.aug.2024 om 21:34 schreef olcott:
On 8/25/2024 12:05 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 25.aug.2024 om 15:24 schreef olcott:
On 8/23/2024 4:07 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:That someone still refuses to see that skipping the last few
joes <noreply@example.org> writes:
Am Wed, 21 Aug 2024 20:55:52 -0500 schrieb olcott:
Professor Sipser clearly agreed that an H that does a finiteIf the simulator *itself* would not abort. The H called by D is, >>>>>>> by construction, the same and *does* abort.
simulation
of D is to predict the behavior of an unlimited simulation of D. >>>>>>>
We don't really know what context Sipser was given. I got in
touch at
the time so do I know he had enough context to know that PO's
ideas were
"wacky" and that had agreed to what he considered a "minor remark". >>>>>>
Since PO considers his words finely crafted and key to his so-called >>>>>> work I think it's clear that Sipser did not take the "minor
remark" he
agreed to to mean what PO takes it to mean! My own take if that he >>>>>> (Sipser) read it as a general remark about how to determine some
cases,
i.e. that D names an input that H can partially simulate to determine >>>>>> it's halting or otherwise. We all know or could construct some such >>>>>> cases.
I suspect he was tricked because PO used H and D as the names without >>>>>> making it clear that D was constructed from H in the usual way
(Sipser
uses H and D in at least one of his proofs). Of course, he is
clued in
enough know that, if D is indeed constructed from H like that, the >>>>>> "minor remark" becomes true by being a hypothetical: if the moon
is made
of cheese, the Martians can look forward to a fine fondue. But,
personally, I think the professor is more straight talking than that, >>>>>> and he simply took as a method that can work for some inputs.
<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> >>>>>
If professor Sipser agreed to this and it only works for
some inputs then his agreement would have been incorrect.
There was an 18 message exchange prior to this agreement.
I do not believe that Professor Sipser made a mistake
because it still seems to be a simple tautology to me.
That's
the only way is could be seen as a "minor remark" with being
accused of
being disingenuous.
Ben saw this right away and it seems that most everyone elseI don’t think you understood him.
simply lied
about it.
I don't think PO even reads what people write. He certainly works >>>>>> hard
to avoid addressing any points made to him. I think it's true to say >>>>>> that pretty much every paraphrase he attempts "X thinks ..." (usually >>>>>> phrased as "so you are saying that black is white?") is garbage.
Understanding what other people say is low in his priorities since >>>>>> they
must be wrong anyway.
(I refuse to have anything more to do with PO directly after he was >>>>>> unconscionably rude, but I do keep an eye out for my name in case he >>>>>> continues to smear it.)
That people still disagree that a correct emulation
of N instructions of DDD according to the semantics
of the x86 language defines what a correct simulation
is still seems flat out dishonest to me.
instructions of a halting program is a violation of the semantics of
the x86 language seems dishonest to me, in particular when several
people pointed him to this error.
In the case of DDD correctly emulated by HHH this does
require HHH to emulate itself emulating DDD exactly one
time before HHH sees the repeating pattern.
A repeating, but not an infinite repeating pattern,
*D would never stop running unless aborted*
*D would never stop running unless aborted*
*D would never stop running unless aborted*
*D would never stop running unless aborted*
Are you just being dishonest?
Forget your dream of a non-aborting HHH. It does abort, so the
'unless' part makes it unnecessarily complicated. It stops running,
because it aborts.
You can't have a HHH that is aborted, when it does not perform the
abort itself.
Why don't you see that? Are you dishonest? It does abort and therefore
is does not repeat infinitely. Then it halts. It stops running. Are
you dishonest, or dreaming, or cheating?
because HHH is programmed to abort and halt after a few cycles,
*It never has been AFTER A FEW CYCLES*
*It has always been until a specific condition is met*
It is coded to abort when it sees this 'specific' condition (after a
few cycles) and then it halts.
I have corrected you on this too may times.
HALTS IS ONLY REACHING A FINAL HALT STATE
HALTS IS ONLY REACHING A FINAL HALT STATE
HALTS IS ONLY REACHING A FINAL HALT STATE
HALTS IS ONLY REACHING A FINAL HALT STATE
HALTS IS ONLY REACHING A FINAL HALT STATE
On 8/26/2024 2:23 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 25.aug.2024 om 22:27 schreef olcott:
On 8/25/2024 3:15 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 25.aug.2024 om 21:34 schreef olcott:
On 8/25/2024 12:05 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 25.aug.2024 om 15:24 schreef olcott:
On 8/23/2024 4:07 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:That someone still refuses to see that skipping the last few
joes <noreply@example.org> writes:
Am Wed, 21 Aug 2024 20:55:52 -0500 schrieb olcott:
Professor Sipser clearly agreed that an H that does a finite >>>>>>>>>> simulationIf the simulator *itself* would not abort. The H called by D is, >>>>>>>>> by construction, the same and *does* abort.
of D is to predict the behavior of an unlimited simulation of D. >>>>>>>>>
We don't really know what context Sipser was given. I got in >>>>>>>> touch at
the time so do I know he had enough context to know that PO's
ideas were
"wacky" and that had agreed to what he considered a "minor remark". >>>>>>>>
Since PO considers his words finely crafted and key to his so- >>>>>>>> called
work I think it's clear that Sipser did not take the "minor
remark" he
agreed to to mean what PO takes it to mean! My own take if that he >>>>>>>> (Sipser) read it as a general remark about how to determine some >>>>>>>> cases,
i.e. that D names an input that H can partially simulate to
determine
it's halting or otherwise. We all know or could construct some >>>>>>>> such
cases.
I suspect he was tricked because PO used H and D as the names
without
making it clear that D was constructed from H in the usual way >>>>>>>> (Sipser
uses H and D in at least one of his proofs). Of course, he is >>>>>>>> clued in
enough know that, if D is indeed constructed from H like that, the >>>>>>>> "minor remark" becomes true by being a hypothetical: if the moon >>>>>>>> is made
of cheese, the Martians can look forward to a fine fondue. But, >>>>>>>> personally, I think the professor is more straight talking than >>>>>>>> that,
and he simply took as a method that can work for some inputs.
<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>
If professor Sipser agreed to this and it only works for
some inputs then his agreement would have been incorrect.
There was an 18 message exchange prior to this agreement.
I do not believe that Professor Sipser made a mistake
because it still seems to be a simple tautology to me.
That's
the only way is could be seen as a "minor remark" with being
accused of
being disingenuous.
Ben saw this right away and it seems that most everyone else >>>>>>>>>> simply liedI don’t think you understood him.
about it.
I don't think PO even reads what people write. He certainly
works hard
to avoid addressing any points made to him. I think it's true >>>>>>>> to say
that pretty much every paraphrase he attempts "X
thinks ..." (usually
phrased as "so you are saying that black is white?") is garbage. >>>>>>>> Understanding what other people say is low in his priorities
since they
must be wrong anyway.
(I refuse to have anything more to do with PO directly after he was >>>>>>>> unconscionably rude, but I do keep an eye out for my name in
case he
continues to smear it.)
That people still disagree that a correct emulation
of N instructions of DDD according to the semantics
of the x86 language defines what a correct simulation
is still seems flat out dishonest to me.
instructions of a halting program is a violation of the semantics
of the x86 language seems dishonest to me, in particular when
several people pointed him to this error.
In the case of DDD correctly emulated by HHH this does
require HHH to emulate itself emulating DDD exactly one
time before HHH sees the repeating pattern.
A repeating, but not an infinite repeating pattern,
*D would never stop running unless aborted*
*D would never stop running unless aborted*
*D would never stop running unless aborted*
*D would never stop running unless aborted*
Are you just being dishonest?
Forget your dream of a non-aborting HHH. It does abort, so the
'unless' part makes it unnecessarily complicated. It stops running,
because it aborts.
You can't have a HHH that is aborted, when it does not perform the
abort itself.
Why don't you see that? Are you dishonest? It does abort and
therefore is does not repeat infinitely. Then it halts. It stops
running. Are you dishonest, or dreaming, or cheating?
because HHH is programmed to abort and halt after a few cycles,
*It never has been AFTER A FEW CYCLES*
*It has always been until a specific condition is met*
It is coded to abort when it sees this 'specific' condition (after a
few cycles) and then it halts.
I have corrected you on this too may times.
HALTS IS ONLY REACHING A FINAL HALT STATE
HALTS IS ONLY REACHING A FINAL HALT STATE
HALTS IS ONLY REACHING A FINAL HALT STATE
HALTS IS ONLY REACHING A FINAL HALT STATE
HALTS IS ONLY REACHING A FINAL HALT STATE
You don't listen. Preventing a halting program to reach its halt state
by aborting the simulation does not prove that it has non-halting
behaviour.
And by aborting the simulated HHH is prevented to reach this halt state.
(other one was before coffee)
*It is either OVER your head or you ARE a liar*
machine stack stack machine assembly
address address data code language
======== ======== ======== ========= ============= [00002192][00103820][00000000] 55 push ebp ; Begin main()
[00002193][00103820][00000000] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping
[00002195][0010381c][00002172] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD [0000219a][00103818][0000219f] e833f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
New slave_stack at:1038c4
Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:1138cc [00002172][001138bc][001138c0] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping
[00002173][001138bc][001138c0] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping
[00002175][001138b8][00002172] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD [0000217a][001138b4][0000217f] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
New slave_stack at:14e2ec
[00002172][0015e2e4][0015e2e8] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping
[00002173][0015e2e4][0015e2e8] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping
[00002175][0015e2e0][00002172] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD [0000217a][0015e2dc][0000217f] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
On 8/26/2024 2:23 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 25.aug.2024 om 22:27 schreef olcott:*It is either your head or you a liar*
On 8/25/2024 3:15 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 25.aug.2024 om 21:34 schreef olcott:
On 8/25/2024 12:05 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 25.aug.2024 om 15:24 schreef olcott:
On 8/23/2024 4:07 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:That someone still refuses to see that skipping the last few
joes <noreply@example.org> writes:
Am Wed, 21 Aug 2024 20:55:52 -0500 schrieb olcott:
Professor Sipser clearly agreed that an H that does a finite >>>>>>>>>> simulationIf the simulator *itself* would not abort. The H called by D is, >>>>>>>>> by construction, the same and *does* abort.
of D is to predict the behavior of an unlimited simulation of D. >>>>>>>>>
We don't really know what context Sipser was given. I got in >>>>>>>> touch at
the time so do I know he had enough context to know that PO's
ideas were
"wacky" and that had agreed to what he considered a "minor remark". >>>>>>>>
Since PO considers his words finely crafted and key to his so- >>>>>>>> called
work I think it's clear that Sipser did not take the "minor
remark" he
agreed to to mean what PO takes it to mean! My own take if that he >>>>>>>> (Sipser) read it as a general remark about how to determine some >>>>>>>> cases,
i.e. that D names an input that H can partially simulate to
determine
it's halting or otherwise. We all know or could construct some >>>>>>>> such
cases.
I suspect he was tricked because PO used H and D as the names
without
making it clear that D was constructed from H in the usual way >>>>>>>> (Sipser
uses H and D in at least one of his proofs). Of course, he is >>>>>>>> clued in
enough know that, if D is indeed constructed from H like that, the >>>>>>>> "minor remark" becomes true by being a hypothetical: if the moon >>>>>>>> is made
of cheese, the Martians can look forward to a fine fondue. But, >>>>>>>> personally, I think the professor is more straight talking than >>>>>>>> that,
and he simply took as a method that can work for some inputs.
<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>
If professor Sipser agreed to this and it only works for
some inputs then his agreement would have been incorrect.
There was an 18 message exchange prior to this agreement.
I do not believe that Professor Sipser made a mistake
because it still seems to be a simple tautology to me.
That's
the only way is could be seen as a "minor remark" with being
accused of
being disingenuous.
Ben saw this right away and it seems that most everyone else >>>>>>>>>> simply liedI don’t think you understood him.
about it.
I don't think PO even reads what people write. He certainly
works hard
to avoid addressing any points made to him. I think it's true >>>>>>>> to say
that pretty much every paraphrase he attempts "X
thinks ..." (usually
phrased as "so you are saying that black is white?") is garbage. >>>>>>>> Understanding what other people say is low in his priorities
since they
must be wrong anyway.
(I refuse to have anything more to do with PO directly after he was >>>>>>>> unconscionably rude, but I do keep an eye out for my name in
case he
continues to smear it.)
That people still disagree that a correct emulation
of N instructions of DDD according to the semantics
of the x86 language defines what a correct simulation
is still seems flat out dishonest to me.
instructions of a halting program is a violation of the semantics
of the x86 language seems dishonest to me, in particular when
several people pointed him to this error.
In the case of DDD correctly emulated by HHH this does
require HHH to emulate itself emulating DDD exactly one
time before HHH sees the repeating pattern.
A repeating, but not an infinite repeating pattern,
*D would never stop running unless aborted*
*D would never stop running unless aborted*
*D would never stop running unless aborted*
*D would never stop running unless aborted*
Are you just being dishonest?
Forget your dream of a non-aborting HHH. It does abort, so the
'unless' part makes it unnecessarily complicated. It stops running,
because it aborts.
You can't have a HHH that is aborted, when it does not perform the
abort itself.
Why don't you see that? Are you dishonest? It does abort and
therefore is does not repeat infinitely. Then it halts. It stops
running. Are you dishonest, or dreaming, or cheating?
because HHH is programmed to abort and halt after a few cycles,
*It never has been AFTER A FEW CYCLES*
*It has always been until a specific condition is met*
It is coded to abort when it sees this 'specific' condition (after a
few cycles) and then it halts.
I have corrected you on this too may times.
HALTS IS ONLY REACHING A FINAL HALT STATE
HALTS IS ONLY REACHING A FINAL HALT STATE
HALTS IS ONLY REACHING A FINAL HALT STATE
HALTS IS ONLY REACHING A FINAL HALT STATE
HALTS IS ONLY REACHING A FINAL HALT STATE
You don't listen. Preventing a halting program to reach its halt state
by aborting the simulation does not prove that it has non-halting
behaviour.
And by aborting the simulated HHH is prevented to reach this halt state.
machine stack stack machine assembly
address address data code language
======== ======== ======== ========= ============= [00002192][00103820][00000000] 55 push ebp ; Begin main()
[00002193][00103820][00000000] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping
[00002195][0010381c][00002172] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD [0000219a][00103818][0000219f] e833f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
New slave_stack at:1038c4
Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:1138cc [00002172][001138bc][001138c0] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping
[00002173][001138bc][001138c0] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping
[00002175][001138b8][00002172] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD [0000217a][001138b4][0000217f] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
New slave_stack at:14e2ec
[00002172][0015e2e4][0015e2e8] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping
[00002173][0015e2e4][0015e2e8] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping
[00002175][0015e2e0][00002172] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD [0000217a][0015e2dc][0000217f] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
On 8/26/2024 2:23 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:You remind me of somebody who tells the same joke every 15 minutes,
Op 25.aug.2024 om 22:27 schreef olcott:
On 8/25/2024 3:15 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 25.aug.2024 om 21:34 schreef olcott:
On 8/25/2024 12:05 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 25.aug.2024 om 15:24 schreef olcott:
On 8/23/2024 4:07 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:That someone still refuses to see that skipping the last few
joes <noreply@example.org> writes:
Am Wed, 21 Aug 2024 20:55:52 -0500 schrieb olcott:
Professor Sipser clearly agreed that an H that does a finite >>>>>>>>>> simulationIf the simulator *itself* would not abort. The H called by D is, >>>>>>>>> by construction, the same and *does* abort.
of D is to predict the behavior of an unlimited simulation of D. >>>>>>>>>
We don't really know what context Sipser was given. I got in >>>>>>>> touch at
the time so do I know he had enough context to know that PO's
ideas were
"wacky" and that had agreed to what he considered a "minor remark". >>>>>>>>
Since PO considers his words finely crafted and key to his so- >>>>>>>> called
work I think it's clear that Sipser did not take the "minor
remark" he
agreed to to mean what PO takes it to mean! My own take if that he >>>>>>>> (Sipser) read it as a general remark about how to determine some >>>>>>>> cases,
i.e. that D names an input that H can partially simulate to
determine
it's halting or otherwise. We all know or could construct some >>>>>>>> such
cases.
I suspect he was tricked because PO used H and D as the names
without
making it clear that D was constructed from H in the usual way >>>>>>>> (Sipser
uses H and D in at least one of his proofs). Of course, he is >>>>>>>> clued in
enough know that, if D is indeed constructed from H like that, the >>>>>>>> "minor remark" becomes true by being a hypothetical: if the moon >>>>>>>> is made
of cheese, the Martians can look forward to a fine fondue. But, >>>>>>>> personally, I think the professor is more straight talking than >>>>>>>> that,
and he simply took as a method that can work for some inputs.
<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>
If professor Sipser agreed to this and it only works for
some inputs then his agreement would have been incorrect.
There was an 18 message exchange prior to this agreement.
I do not believe that Professor Sipser made a mistake
because it still seems to be a simple tautology to me.
That's
the only way is could be seen as a "minor remark" with being
accused of
being disingenuous.
Ben saw this right away and it seems that most everyone else >>>>>>>>>> simply liedI don’t think you understood him.
about it.
I don't think PO even reads what people write. He certainly
works hard
to avoid addressing any points made to him. I think it's true >>>>>>>> to say
that pretty much every paraphrase he attempts "X
thinks ..." (usually
phrased as "so you are saying that black is white?") is garbage. >>>>>>>> Understanding what other people say is low in his priorities
since they
must be wrong anyway.
(I refuse to have anything more to do with PO directly after he was >>>>>>>> unconscionably rude, but I do keep an eye out for my name in
case he
continues to smear it.)
That people still disagree that a correct emulation
of N instructions of DDD according to the semantics
of the x86 language defines what a correct simulation
is still seems flat out dishonest to me.
instructions of a halting program is a violation of the semantics
of the x86 language seems dishonest to me, in particular when
several people pointed him to this error.
In the case of DDD correctly emulated by HHH this does
require HHH to emulate itself emulating DDD exactly one
time before HHH sees the repeating pattern.
A repeating, but not an infinite repeating pattern,
*D would never stop running unless aborted*
*D would never stop running unless aborted*
*D would never stop running unless aborted*
*D would never stop running unless aborted*
Are you just being dishonest?
Forget your dream of a non-aborting HHH. It does abort, so the
'unless' part makes it unnecessarily complicated. It stops running,
because it aborts.
You can't have a HHH that is aborted, when it does not perform the
abort itself.
Why don't you see that? Are you dishonest? It does abort and
therefore is does not repeat infinitely. Then it halts. It stops
running. Are you dishonest, or dreaming, or cheating?
because HHH is programmed to abort and halt after a few cycles,
*It never has been AFTER A FEW CYCLES*
*It has always been until a specific condition is met*
It is coded to abort when it sees this 'specific' condition (after a
few cycles) and then it halts.
I have corrected you on this too may times.
HALTS IS ONLY REACHING A FINAL HALT STATE
HALTS IS ONLY REACHING A FINAL HALT STATE
HALTS IS ONLY REACHING A FINAL HALT STATE
HALTS IS ONLY REACHING A FINAL HALT STATE
HALTS IS ONLY REACHING A FINAL HALT STATE
You don't listen. Preventing a halting program to reach its halt state
by aborting the simulation does not prove that it has non-halting
behaviour.
And by aborting the simulated HHH is prevented to reach this halt
state. That does not change the fact that the simulated HHH would have
detected the 'specific' condition and would have halted.
OK I got it now.
_DDD()
[00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d pop ebp
[00002183] c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
[Correctly emulated] is specified to mean emulated
according to the semantics of the x86 language.
Unlike Ben you do not understand that neither DDD
[correctly emulated] by HHH nor HHH called by this DDD
[correctly emulated] by HHH can possibly return to
their caller.
On 8/26/2024 2:36 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 26.aug.2024 om 20:14 schreef olcott:would have halted.
On 8/26/2024 2:23 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 25.aug.2024 om 22:27 schreef olcott:
You remind me of somebody who tells the same joke every 15 minutes,
OK I got it now.
_DDD()
[00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d pop ebp
[00002183] c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
[Correctly emulated] is specified to mean emulated
according to the semantics of the x86 language.
Unlike Ben you do not understand that neither DDD
[correctly emulated] by HHH nor HHH called by this DDD
[correctly emulated] by HHH can possibly return to
their caller.
because he is short of memory.
I said many times that HHH cannot possibly reach the end of its own
simulation, which proves that the simulation cannot possibly be correct.
Ridiculously stupidly directly disagreeing with the semantics
of the x86 language that define what correct simulation means.
On 8/26/2024 2:36 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 26.aug.2024 om 20:14 schreef olcott:would have halted.
On 8/26/2024 2:23 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 25.aug.2024 om 22:27 schreef olcott:
You remind me of somebody who tells the same joke every 15 minutes,
OK I got it now.
_DDD()
[00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d pop ebp
[00002183] c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
[Correctly emulated] is specified to mean emulated
according to the semantics of the x86 language.
Unlike Ben you do not understand that neither DDD
[correctly emulated] by HHH nor HHH called by this DDD
[correctly emulated] by HHH can possibly return to
their caller.
because he is short of memory.
I said many times that HHH cannot possibly reach the end of its own
simulation, which proves that the simulation cannot possibly be correct.
Ridiculously stupidly directly disagreeing with the semantics
of the x86 language that define what correct simulation means.
On 8/26/2024 2:18 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 26.aug.2024 om 13:35 schreef olcott:
On 8/26/2024 2:23 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:You see finally? The simulation is stopped and therefore the simulated
Op 25.aug.2024 om 22:27 schreef olcott:*It is either your head or you a liar*
On 8/25/2024 3:15 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 25.aug.2024 om 21:34 schreef olcott:
On 8/25/2024 12:05 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 25.aug.2024 om 15:24 schreef olcott:
On 8/23/2024 4:07 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:That someone still refuses to see that skipping the last few
joes <noreply@example.org> writes:<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words
Am Wed, 21 Aug 2024 20:55:52 -0500 schrieb olcott:
Professor Sipser clearly agreed that an H that does a finite >>>>>>>>>>>> simulation
of D is to predict the behavior of an unlimited simulation >>>>>>>>>>>> of D.
If the simulator *itself* would not abort. The H called by D is, >>>>>>>>>>> by construction, the same and *does* abort.
We don't really know what context Sipser was given. I got in >>>>>>>>>> touch at
the time so do I know he had enough context to know that PO's >>>>>>>>>> ideas were
"wacky" and that had agreed to what he considered a "minor >>>>>>>>>> remark".
Since PO considers his words finely crafted and key to his so- >>>>>>>>>> called
work I think it's clear that Sipser did not take the "minor >>>>>>>>>> remark" he
agreed to to mean what PO takes it to mean! My own take if >>>>>>>>>> that he
(Sipser) read it as a general remark about how to determine >>>>>>>>>> some cases,
i.e. that D names an input that H can partially simulate to >>>>>>>>>> determine
it's halting or otherwise. We all know or could construct >>>>>>>>>> some such
cases.
I suspect he was tricked because PO used H and D as the names >>>>>>>>>> without
making it clear that D was constructed from H in the usual way >>>>>>>>>> (Sipser
uses H and D in at least one of his proofs). Of course, he is >>>>>>>>>> clued in
enough know that, if D is indeed constructed from H like that, >>>>>>>>>> the
"minor remark" becomes true by being a hypothetical: if the >>>>>>>>>> moon is made
of cheese, the Martians can look forward to a fine fondue. But, >>>>>>>>>> personally, I think the professor is more straight talking >>>>>>>>>> than that,
and he simply took as a method that can work for some inputs. >>>>>>>>>
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>
If professor Sipser agreed to this and it only works for
some inputs then his agreement would have been incorrect.
There was an 18 message exchange prior to this agreement.
I do not believe that Professor Sipser made a mistake
because it still seems to be a simple tautology to me.
That's
the only way is could be seen as a "minor remark" with being >>>>>>>>>> accused of
being disingenuous.
Ben saw this right away and it seems that most everyone else >>>>>>>>>>>> simply liedI don’t think you understood him.
about it.
I don't think PO even reads what people write. He certainly >>>>>>>>>> works hard
to avoid addressing any points made to him. I think it's true >>>>>>>>>> to say
that pretty much every paraphrase he attempts "X
thinks ..." (usually
phrased as "so you are saying that black is white?") is garbage. >>>>>>>>>> Understanding what other people say is low in his priorities >>>>>>>>>> since they
must be wrong anyway.
(I refuse to have anything more to do with PO directly after >>>>>>>>>> he was
unconscionably rude, but I do keep an eye out for my name in >>>>>>>>>> case he
continues to smear it.)
That people still disagree that a correct emulation
of N instructions of DDD according to the semantics
of the x86 language defines what a correct simulation
is still seems flat out dishonest to me.
instructions of a halting program is a violation of the
semantics of the x86 language seems dishonest to me, in
particular when several people pointed him to this error.
In the case of DDD correctly emulated by HHH this does
require HHH to emulate itself emulating DDD exactly one
time before HHH sees the repeating pattern.
A repeating, but not an infinite repeating pattern,
*D would never stop running unless aborted*
*D would never stop running unless aborted*
*D would never stop running unless aborted*
*D would never stop running unless aborted*
Are you just being dishonest?
Forget your dream of a non-aborting HHH. It does abort, so the
'unless' part makes it unnecessarily complicated. It stops
running, because it aborts.
You can't have a HHH that is aborted, when it does not perform the >>>>>> abort itself.
Why don't you see that? Are you dishonest? It does abort and
therefore is does not repeat infinitely. Then it halts. It stops
running. Are you dishonest, or dreaming, or cheating?
because HHH is programmed to abort and halt after a few cycles, >>>>>>>*It never has been AFTER A FEW CYCLES*
*It has always been until a specific condition is met*
It is coded to abort when it sees this 'specific' condition (after >>>>>> a few cycles) and then it halts.
I have corrected you on this too may times.
HALTS IS ONLY REACHING A FINAL HALT STATE
HALTS IS ONLY REACHING A FINAL HALT STATE
HALTS IS ONLY REACHING A FINAL HALT STATE
HALTS IS ONLY REACHING A FINAL HALT STATE
HALTS IS ONLY REACHING A FINAL HALT STATE
You don't listen. Preventing a halting program to reach its halt
state by aborting the simulation does not prove that it has non-
halting behaviour.
And by aborting the simulated HHH is prevented to reach this halt
state.
machine stack stack machine assembly
address address data code language
======== ======== ======== ========= =============
[00002192][00103820][00000000] 55 push ebp ; Begin main()
[00002193][00103820][00000000] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping
[00002195][0010381c][00002172] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000219a][00103818][0000219f] e833f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
New slave_stack at:1038c4
Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:1138cc >>> [00002172][001138bc][001138c0] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping
[00002173][001138bc][001138c0] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping
[00002175][001138b8][00002172] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a][001138b4][0000217f] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
New slave_stack at:14e2ec
[00002172][0015e2e4][0015e2e8] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping
[00002173][0015e2e4][0015e2e8] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping
[00002175][0015e2e0][00002172] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a][0015e2dc][0000217f] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
program is unable to reach its end.
One cycle more and it would reach the end, as is demonstrated by the
direct execution and by the simulation by HHH1.
Show exactly how the above DDD emulated by HHH will
reach past its own line machine address 0000217a.
On 8/26/2024 2:23 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 25.aug.2024 om 22:27 schreef olcott:
On 8/25/2024 3:15 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 25.aug.2024 om 21:34 schreef olcott:
On 8/25/2024 12:05 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 25.aug.2024 om 15:24 schreef olcott:
On 8/23/2024 4:07 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:That someone still refuses to see that skipping the last few
joes <noreply@example.org> writes:
Am Wed, 21 Aug 2024 20:55:52 -0500 schrieb olcott:
Professor Sipser clearly agreed that an H that does a finite simulationIf the simulator *itself* would not abort. The H called by D is, >>>>>>>>> by construction, the same and *does* abort.
of D is to predict the behavior of an unlimited simulation of D. >>>>>>>>>
We don't really know what context Sipser was given. I got in touch at
the time so do I know he had enough context to know that PO's ideas were
"wacky" and that had agreed to what he considered a "minor remark". >>>>>>>>
Since PO considers his words finely crafted and key to his so-called >>>>>>>> work I think it's clear that Sipser did not take the "minor remark" he >>>>>>>> agreed to to mean what PO takes it to mean! My own take if that he >>>>>>>> (Sipser) read it as a general remark about how to determine some cases,
i.e. that D names an input that H can partially simulate to determine >>>>>>>> it's halting or otherwise. We all know or could construct some such >>>>>>>> cases.
I suspect he was tricked because PO used H and D as the names without >>>>>>>> making it clear that D was constructed from H in the usual way (Sipser >>>>>>>> uses H and D in at least one of his proofs). Of course, he is clued in
enough know that, if D is indeed constructed from H like that, the >>>>>>>> "minor remark" becomes true by being a hypothetical: if the moon is made
of cheese, the Martians can look forward to a fine fondue. But, >>>>>>>> personally, I think the professor is more straight talking than that, >>>>>>>> and he simply took as a method that can work for some inputs.
<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> >>>>>>>
If professor Sipser agreed to this and it only works for
some inputs then his agreement would have been incorrect.
There was an 18 message exchange prior to this agreement.
I do not believe that Professor Sipser made a mistake
because it still seems to be a simple tautology to me.
That's
the only way is could be seen as a "minor remark" with being accused of
being disingenuous.
Ben saw this right away and it seems that most everyone else simply liedI don’t think you understood him.
about it.
I don't think PO even reads what people write. He certainly works hard
to avoid addressing any points made to him. I think it's true to say >>>>>>>> that pretty much every paraphrase he attempts "X thinks ..." (usually >>>>>>>> phrased as "so you are saying that black is white?") is garbage. >>>>>>>> Understanding what other people say is low in his priorities since they
must be wrong anyway.
(I refuse to have anything more to do with PO directly after he was >>>>>>>> unconscionably rude, but I do keep an eye out for my name in case he >>>>>>>> continues to smear it.)
That people still disagree that a correct emulation
of N instructions of DDD according to the semantics
of the x86 language defines what a correct simulation
is still seems flat out dishonest to me.
instructions of a halting program is a violation of the semantics of >>>>>> the x86 language seems dishonest to me, in particular when several >>>>>> people pointed him to this error.
In the case of DDD correctly emulated by HHH this does
require HHH to emulate itself emulating DDD exactly one
time before HHH sees the repeating pattern.
A repeating, but not an infinite repeating pattern,
*D would never stop running unless aborted*
*D would never stop running unless aborted*
*D would never stop running unless aborted*
*D would never stop running unless aborted*
Are you just being dishonest?
Forget your dream of a non-aborting HHH. It does abort, so the 'unless' >>>> part makes it unnecessarily complicated. It stops running, because it
aborts.
You can't have a HHH that is aborted, when it does not perform the
abort itself.
Why don't you see that? Are you dishonest? It does abort and therefore >>>> is does not repeat infinitely. Then it halts. It stops running. Are you >>>> dishonest, or dreaming, or cheating?
because HHH is programmed to abort and halt after a few cycles,
*It never has been AFTER A FEW CYCLES*
*It has always been until a specific condition is met*
It is coded to abort when it sees this 'specific' condition (after a
few cycles) and then it halts.
I have corrected you on this too may times.
HALTS IS ONLY REACHING A FINAL HALT STATE
HALTS IS ONLY REACHING A FINAL HALT STATE
HALTS IS ONLY REACHING A FINAL HALT STATE
HALTS IS ONLY REACHING A FINAL HALT STATE
HALTS IS ONLY REACHING A FINAL HALT STATE
You don't listen. Preventing a halting program to reach its halt state
by aborting the simulation does not prove that it has non-halting
behaviour.
And by aborting the simulated HHH is prevented to reach this halt
state. That does not change the fact that the simulated HHH would have
detected the 'specific' condition and would have halted.
OK I got it now.
_DDD()
[00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d pop ebp
[00002183] c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
[Correctly emulated] is specified to mean emulated
according to the semantics of the x86 language.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 08:33:41 |
| Calls: | 10,388 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,833 |
| Posted today: | 1 |