• Re: MIT Professor Michael Sipser validates the notion of a simulating h

    From Mr Flibble@21:1/5 to olcott on Sun Oct 16 16:37:36 2022
    XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, comp.lang.c++

    On Sun, 16 Oct 2022 10:16:48 -0500
    olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:

    <Sipser approved abstract>
    MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that the following verbatim paragraph is correct (he has not agreed to anything else in this
    paper):

    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.
    </Sipser approved abstract>

    to this paper:

    *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof* https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof

    The proof that the simulation of D by H is correct and that this
    correctly simulated D would never stop running unless aborted is on
    page 3 of the above paper. People that fail to comprehend the
    technical details of page 3 are unqualified to assess the correctness
    of page 3.

    The technical prerequisites for page 3 are expert knowledge of the C programming language, knowledge of x86 assembly language and how the
    C calling conventions are implemented in x86 assembly language.

    Page 4 shows the application of a simulating halt decider to the
    Peter Linz proof proving that the "impossible" input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to the embedded copy of Linz H contained within Linz Ĥ is correctly
    construed as specifying non-halting sequence of configurations.

    You have been told multiple times now that you are not doing a correct simulation of D so it doesn't matter what Sipser says.

    The correct simulation of D by H is D behaving as if there was a
    direction execution of D(D).

    /Flibble

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From olcott@21:1/5 to Mr Flibble on Sun Oct 16 10:44:40 2022
    XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, comp.lang.c++

    On 10/16/2022 10:37 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
    On Sun, 16 Oct 2022 10:16:48 -0500
    olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:

    <Sipser approved abstract>
    MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that the following verbatim
    paragraph is correct (he has not agreed to anything else in this
    paper):

    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.
    </Sipser approved abstract>

    to this paper:

    *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof*
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof

    The proof that the simulation of D by H is correct and that this
    correctly simulated D would never stop running unless aborted is on
    page 3 of the above paper. People that fail to comprehend the
    technical details of page 3 are unqualified to assess the correctness
    of page 3.

    The technical prerequisites for page 3 are expert knowledge of the C
    programming language, knowledge of x86 assembly language and how the
    C calling conventions are implemented in x86 assembly language.

    Page 4 shows the application of a simulating halt decider to the
    Peter Linz proof proving that the "impossible" input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to the
    embedded copy of Linz H contained within Linz Ĥ is correctly
    construed as specifying non-halting sequence of configurations.

    You have been told multiple times now that you are not doing a correct simulation of D

    By people not having the technical competence (see above technical prerequisites) to verify that this simulation is correct.

    --
    Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

    "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
    Genius hits a target no one else can see."
    Arthur Schopenhauer

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Sun Oct 16 13:54:05 2022
    XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic

    On 10/16/22 1:15 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 10/16/2022 11:58 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 10/16/22 11:16 AM, olcott wrote:
    <Sipser approved abstract>
    MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that the following verbatim
    paragraph is correct (he has not agreed to anything else in this paper): >>>
    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.
    </Sipser approved abstract>

    to this paper:

    *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof*
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof

    The proof that the simulation of D by H is correct and that this
    correctly simulated D would never stop running unless aborted is on
    page 3 of the above paper. People that fail to comprehend the
    technical details of page 3 are unqualified to assess the correctness
    of page 3.

    The technical prerequisites for page 3 are expert knowledge of the C
    programming language, knowledge of x86 assembly language and how the
    C calling conventions are implemented in x86 assembly language.

    Page 4 shows the application of a simulating halt decider to the
    Peter Linz proof proving that the "impossible" input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to the
    embedded copy of Linz H contained within Linz Ĥ is correctly
    construed as specifying non-halting sequence of configurations.


    You logic is incorrect as heen pointed out many times.

    Like I said my reasoning on page 3 only applies to people having
    sufficient technical competence (apparently not you).

    WHich is a false claim.

    There is nothing in the arguement that actually requires that.

    The fact that you mention it almost implies that you don't really have
    the expertise to understand what you are talking about.


    Sipser_H: Begin Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:111fa8
     machine   stack     stack     machine    assembly
     address   address   data      code       language
     ========  ========  ========  =========  ============= [000012ae][00111f94][00111f98] 55         push ebp      // Begin Sipser_D
    [000012af][00111f94][00111f98] 8bec       mov ebp,esp [000012b1][00111f94][00111f98] 8b4508     mov eax,[ebp+08] [000012b4][00111f90][000012ae] 50         push eax      // push Sipser_D
    [000012b5][00111f90][000012ae] 8b4d08     mov ecx,[ebp+08] [000012b8][00111f8c][000012ae] 51         push ecx      // push Sipser_D
    [000012b9][00111f88][000012be] e880fdffff call 0000103e // call Sipser_H Sipser_H: Infinitely Recursive Simulation Detected Simulation Stopped

    We can see that the first seven instructions of Sipser_D simulated by Sipser_H precisely match the first seven instructions of the x86
    source-code of Sipser_D. This conclusively proves that these
    instructions were simulated correctly.

    Right, so it is a correct PARTIAL simulation.


    Anyone sufficiently technically competent in the x86 programming
    language will agree that the above execution trace of Sipser_D simulated
    by Sipser_H shows that Sipser_D will never stop running unless Sipser_H aborts its simulation of Sipser_D.



    Not in the sense required by the problem.

    Since the Sipser_H being called WILL abort it simulation of the next
    level of procesing of simulating another copy of Sipser_D, and return 0,
    it is clear that the current simulating Sipser_H doesn't NEED to abort
    the simulation to keep if from being non-halting, it only needs to abort
    is as that is the code it contains.

    By your logic EVERY loop is non-halting, because it only stops because
    it decides to stop.

    You are just showing your total lack of understanding of the topic.

    The fact that you only "rebuttal" is to just repeat your falsehood and
    claim that I "obviously" don't understand what you are saying, is
    showing that what you are saying doesn't actually have a factual basis
    to work on.

    Factual statements generally can be reduced to simpler more basic terms
    until you reach things so elementary they are of the form that are
    generally accepted as true by the wide audience.

    FALSEHOOD resist this treatment, as breaking them down to simpler terms
    just reveals the falsehood more directly.

    You inability to reduce your arguement a level says that it isn't based
    on real truth, but lies. (Or at least you don't understand the truth
    behind it, but since it is shown wrong, that isn't the case).

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From olcott@21:1/5 to Richard Damon on Sun Oct 16 12:15:43 2022
    XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic

    On 10/16/2022 11:58 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 10/16/22 11:16 AM, olcott wrote:
    <Sipser approved abstract>
    MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that the following verbatim
    paragraph is correct (he has not agreed to anything else in this paper):

    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.
    </Sipser approved abstract>

    to this paper:

    *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof*
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof

    The proof that the simulation of D by H is correct and that this
    correctly simulated D would never stop running unless aborted is on
    page 3 of the above paper. People that fail to comprehend the
    technical details of page 3 are unqualified to assess the correctness
    of page 3.

    The technical prerequisites for page 3 are expert knowledge of the C
    programming language, knowledge of x86 assembly language and how the C
    calling conventions are implemented in x86 assembly language.

    Page 4 shows the application of a simulating halt decider to the Peter
    Linz proof proving that the "impossible" input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to the embedded
    copy of Linz H contained within Linz Ĥ is correctly construed as
    specifying non-halting sequence of configurations.


    You logic is incorrect as heen pointed out many times.

    Like I said my reasoning on page 3 only applies to people having
    sufficient technical competence (apparently not you).

    Sipser_H: Begin Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:111fa8
    machine stack stack machine assembly
    address address data code language
    ======== ======== ======== ========= ============= [000012ae][00111f94][00111f98] 55 push ebp // Begin Sipser_D [000012af][00111f94][00111f98] 8bec mov ebp,esp [000012b1][00111f94][00111f98] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] [000012b4][00111f90][000012ae] 50 push eax // push Sipser_D [000012b5][00111f90][000012ae] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] [000012b8][00111f8c][000012ae] 51 push ecx // push Sipser_D [000012b9][00111f88][000012be] e880fdffff call 0000103e // call Sipser_H Sipser_H: Infinitely Recursive Simulation Detected Simulation Stopped

    We can see that the first seven instructions of Sipser_D simulated by
    Sipser_H precisely match the first seven instructions of the x86
    source-code of Sipser_D. This conclusively proves that these
    instructions were simulated correctly.

    Anyone sufficiently technically competent in the x86 programming
    language will agree that the above execution trace of Sipser_D simulated
    by Sipser_H shows that Sipser_D will never stop running unless Sipser_H
    aborts its simulation of Sipser_D.




    --
    Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
    Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)