Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise ---
 pinned down
Date: Fri, 31 May 2024 20:10:54 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 119
Message-ID: <v3dsev$2f6ul$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v3501h$lpnh$1@dont-email.me> <v373mr$2d367$5@i2pn2.org>
 <v37bpa$15n0b$1@dont-email.me> <v37i9p$lls$1@news.muc.de>
 <87y17smqnq.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <v37sap$18mfo$1@dont-email.me>
 <v38eq4$2foi0$1@i2pn2.org> <v38fe0$1bndb$1@dont-email.me>
 <v38g31$2foi0$11@i2pn2.org> <v38gi5$1bndb$3@dont-email.me>
 <v38ici$2fohv$2@i2pn2.org> <v38j17$1c8ir$2@dont-email.me>
 <v38jgo$2foi0$14@i2pn2.org> <v38jv9$1c8ir$4@dont-email.me>
 <v39agi$1jiql$1@dont-email.me> <v39v3h$1mtd9$5@dont-email.me>
 <v3b9kj$2im02$1@i2pn2.org> <v3bale$222n5$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3bbs2$2im01$1@i2pn2.org> <v3bcre$22a8n$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3bduk$2im01$2@i2pn2.org> <v3bedb$22f8h$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3bfbm$2im01$3@i2pn2.org> <v3bg39$22o6m$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3cbhu$2k3ld$1@i2pn2.org> <v3clo2$28p7n$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3dft1$2lfup$1@i2pn2.org> <v3dhob$2dio8$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3dk0d$2lfup$2@i2pn2.org> <v3dkf2$2e2po$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3dmnc$2lfup$3@i2pn2.org> <v3do66$2ejq2$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3dqka$2lfup$4@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2024 03:10:56 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5617c6a52e82e3edb2307f1199229213";
	logging-data="2595797"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/iU2lmJ78YC7KcP60ysfzF"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:o14gFoUF8tm8CEyzN63TTLNqBiY=
In-Reply-To: <v3dqka$2lfup$4@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6985

On 5/31/2024 7:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/31/24 7:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/31/2024 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/31/24 6:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/31/2024 5:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/31/24 6:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/31/2024 4:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/31/24 10:10 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/31/2024 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/30/24 11:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Try and show how HH using an x86 emulator can correctly emulate
>>>>>>>>>> the following x86 machine code such that DD reaches its own
>>>>>>>>>> machine address 00001c47.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why should I, since that isn't what I was saying.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *To me that looks like you know that*
>>>>>>>> *you have been busted in a lie and are backing down*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> no, YOU are LYING RIGHT HERE AND NOW.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Prove that I said that the simulation by HH made it there, or 
>>>>>>> admit to being a DAMNED LIAR.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What I have been saying is the the DIRECT EXDCUTION of DD, and 
>>>>>>> the CORRECT (and complete) simulation of the input to HH by an 
>>>>>>> actual UTM will get there.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That has always been the dishonest dodge strawman deception
>>>>>> CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT fake rebuttal regarding
>>>>>> the behavior of DD correctly simulated by pure function HH.
>>>>>
>>>>> But it is your talking about the "correctly simulated by HH" that 
>>>>> is the dishonest dodge, 
>>>>
>>>> Try and show how HH using an x86 emulator can correctly emulate
>>>> the following x86 machine code such that DD reaches its own
>>>> machine address 00001c47.
>>>
>>> Never said it could. But haven't looked hard enough to be willing to 
>>> say it can't, but then, who cares, it doesn't say a thing about the 
>>> real halting problem, since H's simulation isn't "correct" by a 
>>> definition that relates simulation to non-halting behavior,
>>>
>>
>> "...the Turing machine will halt whenever it enters a final state."
>> Linz(1990:234)
> 
> Right, and that is talking about runnig the Turing Machine, not 
> simulating a representation of it.
> 

DD correctly simulated by HH cannot possibly reach its own simulated
final state. This is conclusively proven beyond all possible doubt
by the x86 machine code of DD.

You can lie about this and try to get away with changing the subject.
What you cannot do is show that it is not true.

*Showing that it is relevant is a whole other different subject that*
*we can get to as soon as you quit your deception on this subject*

*Showing that it is relevant is a whole other different subject that*
*we can get to as soon as you quit your deception on this subject*

*Showing that it is relevant is a whole other different subject that*
*we can get to as soon as you quit your deception on this subject*

>>
>> *If DD correctly simulated by HH can't possibly reach its own*
>> *final state then DD correctly simulated by HH is non-halting*
> Nope, Where did that definition say ANYTHING about one machine 
> simulationg another.
> 

Trying to get away with saying that you don't "believe in" UTMs
can't possibly fool anyone that knows what UTMs are.

When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn

When embedded_H <is> a UTM then ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated by embedded_H
cannot possibly reach its own simulated final state of ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩. In this
case embedded_H fails to be a decider, however it also proves:

that ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated by embedded_H cannot possibly reach its
own simulated final state of ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩ for any embedded_H based on a UTM
that only simulates some finite sequence of steps.

"...the Turing machine will halt whenever it enters a final state."
Linz(1990:234)

⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated by embedded_H cannot possibly reach its
own simulated final state of ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩

*The input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H SPECIFIES non-halting behavior*
*The input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H SPECIFIES non-halting behavior*
*The input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H SPECIFIES non-halting behavior*

You can lie about this or try to get away with changing the subject.
What you cannot do it show that it is not true.

*Showing that it is relevant is a whole other different subject that*
*we can get to as soon as you quit your deception on this subject*

*Showing that it is relevant is a whole other different subject that*
*we can get to as soon as you quit your deception on this subject*

*Showing that it is relevant is a whole other different subject that*
*we can get to as soon as you quit your deception on this subject*


-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer