Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets Date: Wed, 29 May 2024 13:08:50 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 81 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Wed, 29 May 2024 20:08:51 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b7a5feb561e035e50c2e5bc5a99a467f"; logging-data="1322876"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19oU0hAOpFMJRoGsdsIegdv" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:S1YmdIIT7ulQ2nbJn5lBw7kfteQ= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 4214 On 5/29/2024 12:08 PM, Mike Terry wrote: > On 29/05/2024 17:17, olcott wrote: >> On 5/29/2024 10:40 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>> >>> In comp.theory olcott wrote: >>> >>> [ .... ] >>> >>>> Everyone that knows the truth knows that I am correct and you are >>>> wrong. >>>> There is NO correct reasoning that can possibly show that I am wrong. >>> >>> Everybody here, bar one person, knows you are wrong. >>> >> >> *Most everyone here believes that I am wrong at least somewhere* >> >> When we go over what I am saying point by point and thus do not >> allow the *strawman deception CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT fake rebuttal* >> no one here have provided complete and correct reasoning that I >> am wrong on any one point. >> >> The point of this post is {templates and infinite sets} >> >> *Formalizing the Linz Proof structure* >> ∃H  ∈ Turing_Machines >> ∀x  ∈ Turing_Machines_Descriptions >> ∀y  ∈ Finite_Strings >> such that H(x,y) = Halts(x,y) >> >> *Here is the same sort of template to H/D pairs* >> ∃H ∈ C_Functions >> ∀D ∈ x86_Machine_Code_of_C_Functions >> such that H(D,D) = Halts(D,D) >> >> >>>> Mike Terry would know that I am correct. Ben might not understand >>>> quantification. Ben did verify this encoding: >>> >>> How about a bit of respect?  Mike specifically asked you not to cite his >>> name as a back up for your points.  Why do you keep doing it? >> >> I did not read it that way. >> I read that he said that I often respond to specific reviewers by name. >> > > My points were : > -   you refer to comments by reviewers (both here and elsewhere), often >     out of context, as an APPEAL TO AUTHORITY - i.e. in an attempt to >     shut down an ongoing discussion which you are incapable of arguing >     yourself. >     [I'm not suggesting I am any kind of "authority" here!.] > > -   you often /misrepresent/ reviewers position, because you lack the >     ability to understand what reviewers actually mean when they make >     a point to you. > > -   you should argue your own case in your own words. > > Mike. Whenever I do quote someone I have always provided the time/date stamp so that the complete context can be easily seen. I also now add the unique Message-ID since the Thai spammer has forced Goggle Groups to shut down. Message-ID: On 3/1/2024 12:41 PM, Mike Terry wrote: > > Obviously a simulator has access to the internal state > (tape contents etc.) of the simulated machine. No problem there. I waited for two years for someone to confirm this key element of my proof. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer