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: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 21:52:44 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 66
Message-ID: <v5dbds$1bpnq$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v598l4$c4if$1@dont-email.me> <v5abdl$igvh$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5ac1p$smd4$4@i2pn2.org> <v5add4$isal$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5aebe$smd4$5@i2pn2.org> <v5aggb$jan3$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5ah6u$smd5$7@i2pn2.org> <v5ahkc$jgfe$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5ai8i$smd5$8@i2pn2.org> <v5aij8$nd1b$2@dont-email.me>
 <v5ajva$smd4$6@i2pn2.org> <v5akga$nr6u$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5aktu$smd4$8@i2pn2.org> <v5alis$o08r$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5alpo$smd5$10@i2pn2.org> <v5am7l$o31i$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5an1e$o6ib$1@dont-email.me> <v5ao4p$smd4$10@i2pn2.org>
 <v5ap10$odqa$1@dont-email.me> <v5bjn9$ursa$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v5bt3m$v0vb$2@dont-email.me> <v5cuta$10m6o$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v5d0bf$162m0$1@dont-email.me> <v5d188$10m6p$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v5d1ev$16a8b$1@dont-email.me> <v5d1mm$10m6o$8@i2pn2.org>
 <v5d3b4$16k7k$1@dont-email.me> <v5d4gj$10m6o$9@i2pn2.org>
 <v5d81s$17fhi$1@dont-email.me> <v5d8fr$10m6o$12@i2pn2.org>
 <v5d9iv$1bem6$2@dont-email.me> <v5d9s6$10m6p$10@i2pn2.org>
 <v5daji$1bll8$1@dont-email.me> <v5db62$10m6o$13@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 04:52:45 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="422dd2162c45ab1a09b084523bb5ca66";
	logging-data="1435386"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+csKsCkLU6Ldx3Z7lHtXY1"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:uC9rACC3WmlKV/7lKc+MnojwlDM=
In-Reply-To: <v5db62$10m6o$13@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4081

On 6/24/2024 9:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/24/24 10:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/24/2024 9:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/24/24 10:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/24/2024 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/24/24 9:55 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *We can get to that as soon as you reverse your lie*
>>>>>> *We can get to that as soon as you reverse your lie*
>>>>>> *We can get to that as soon as you reverse your lie*
>>>>>
>>>>> You still haven't shown where I lied, on where you don't like what 
>>>>> I say.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You said that D correctly simulated by H must
>>>>>> have the behavior of the directly executed D(D).
>>>>>
>>>>> Right, the steps that H sees are IDENTIAL to the steps of the 
>>>>> directly executed D(D) until H stops its simulation,
>>>>>
>>>>> NOT ONE DIFFERENCE.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Honest mistake or liar?
>>>>
>>>> The directly executed D(D) has identical behavior to
>>>> D correctly simulated by H1
>>>> *the call from D to H(D,D) returns*
>>>>
>>>> This is not the same behavior as
>>>> D correctly simulated by H
>>>> *the call from D to H(D,D) DOES NOT return*
>>>>
>>>
>>> And what instruction did H's simulation differ from the direct 
>>> executions trace?
>>>
>>
>> D correctly simulated by H
>> *the call from D to H(D,D) DOES NOT return*
> 
> Which isn't "Behavior of the input"
> 
> The "not happening" of something that could have happened except that 
> the processing was stoped is NOT behavior.
> 
>>
>> D correctly simulated by H1 --- Identical to D(D)
>> *the call from D to H(D,D) returns*
>>
> 
> Right, and it contains ALL of the behavior of the correct simulation of 
> D by H, plus more.
> 
> H doesn't see DIFFERENT behavior, just LESS, and that differnce isn't 
> due to the input, but due to H.

These are not the same behaviors
*the call from D to H(D,D) CANNOT POSSIBLY return*
*the call from D to H(D,D) returns*

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