Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connectionsPath: ...!news.misty.com!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic Subject: Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2024 16:24:57 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 237 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2024 23:24:58 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5617c6a52e82e3edb2307f1199229213"; logging-data="3131141"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+aEfY3K8Uw5j0farkqXbU0" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:mXf2bvP4QkyTFVsURqJKtuvY4IA= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 12038 On 6/1/2024 4:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/1/24 4:37 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/1/2024 3:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/1/24 3:51 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/1/2024 1:54 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>> Op 01.jun.2024 om 20:07 schreef olcott: >>>>>> On 6/1/2024 12:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/1/24 1:44 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/1/2024 12:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/1/24 1:27 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/2024 12:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/24 12:38 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/2024 11:27 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/24 12:13 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/2024 10:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/24 11:30 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *I will not discuss any other points with you until >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> after you either* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Acknowledge that DD correctly simulated by HH and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      simulated by embedded_H remain stuck in recursive >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      1 to ∞ of correct simulation or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Correctly prove otherwise. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And until you answer the question of what that actually >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> means, I will reply WHO CARES. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> typedef int (*ptr)();  // ptr is pointer to int function in C >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 00       int HH(ptr p, ptr i); >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 01       int DD(ptr p) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 02       { >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 03         int Halt_Status = HH(p, p); >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 04         if (Halt_Status) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 05           HERE: goto HERE; >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 06         return Halt_Status; >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 07       } >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 08 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 09       int main() >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10       { >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 11         HH(DD,DD); >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 12         return 0; >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 13       } >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every DD correctly simulated by any HH of the infinite set >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of HH/DD >>>>>>>>>>>>>> pairs that match the above template never reaches past its >>>>>>>>>>>>>> own simulated >>>>>>>>>>>>>> line 03 in 1 to ∞ steps of correct simulation of DD by HH. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In this case HH is either a pure simulator that never >>>>>>>>>>>>>> halts or >>>>>>>>>>>>>> HH is a pure function that stops simulating after some >>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite number >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of simulated lines. The line count is stored in a local >>>>>>>>>>>>>> variable. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The pure function HH always returns the meaningless value >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of 56 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> after it stops simulating. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So, still no answer, to teh question. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You can pretend that you don't understand something that you >>>>>>>>>>>> do indeed >>>>>>>>>>>> understand into perpetuity. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The key measure of dishonestly would be that you continue to >>>>>>>>>>>> say >>>>>>>>>>>> that you don't understand yet never ever point out exactly >>>>>>>>>>>> what you >>>>>>>>>>>> don't understand and why you don't understand it. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I giuess that Mean YOU don't even know what you are asking, >>>>>>>>>>>>> though it seems that now you are admitting that your HH >>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't actually ANSWER the question, so it isn't ACTUALL a >>>>>>>>>>>>> decider for any function except the "56" mapping. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I will repeat the question and until you answer the >>>>>>>>>>>>> question of what that actually means, I will reply WHO CARES. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> DO you mean the simulation of the TEMPLATE DD, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> *Of course I don't mean that nonsense. I mean exactly what I >>>>>>>>>>>> specified* >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> which means that we CAN'T simulate the call HH as we have >>>>>>>>>>>>> no code past point to simulate, and thus your claim is just >>>>>>>>>>>>> a LIE. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Or, do you mean a given instance of HH simulating a given >>>>>>>>>>>>> instance of DD, at which point we never have the 1 to >>>>>>>>>>>>> infinte number of simulatons of THAT INPUT, so your claim >>>>>>>>>>>>> is just a LIE. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Every element of the infinite set of every H/D pairs... >>>>>>>>>>>> Every element of the infinite set of every H/D pairs... >>>>>>>>>>>> Every element of the infinite set of every H/D pairs... >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> *Its not that hard when one refrains from dishonesty* >>>>>>>>>>>> We can't even say that you forgot these details from one reply >>>>>>>>>>>> to the next because the details are still in this same post. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> And every one gives a meaningless answer, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *THEN TRY TO REFUTE THIS UNEQUIVOCAL STATEMENT* >>>>>>>>>> DD correctly emulated by HH with an x86 emulator cannot possibly >>>>>>>>>> reach past its own machine instruction [00001c2e] in any finite >>>>>>>>>> number of steps of correct emulation. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Why? I don't care about it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> As I have said, the implication of your definition of "Correct >>>>>>>>> SImulation" means that this says NOTHING about the halting >>>>>>>>> behavior of DD. (only not halted yet) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *THEN TRY TO REFUTE THIS UNEQUIVOCAL STATEMENT* >>>>>>>> DD correctly emulated by HH with an x86 emulator cannot possibly >>>>>>>> reach past its own machine instruction [00001c2e] in any finite >>>>>>>> *or infinite* number of steps of correct emulation. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> When I say it that way you claim to be confused and what I do >>>>>>>> not say it that way you claim what I say is incomplete proof. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> WHy do I care? I won't spend the effort to even try to refute >>>>>>> something that is clearly meaningless. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You seem to have a conflict of definitions, as a given DD will >>>>>>> only ever be simulated by ONE given HH that only simuates for one >>>>>>> number of steps. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> typedef int (*ptr)();  // ptr is pointer to int function in C >>>>>> 00       int HH(ptr p, ptr i); >>>>>> 01       int DD(ptr p) >>>>>> 02       { >>>>>> 03         int Halt_Status = HH(p, p); >>>>>> 04         if (Halt_Status) >>>>>> 05           HERE: goto HERE; >>>>>> 06         return Halt_Status; >>>>>> 07       } >>>>>> 08 >>>>>> 09       int main() >>>>>> 10       { >>>>>> 11         HH(DD,DD); >>>>>> 12         return 0; >>>>>> 13       } >>>>>> >>>>>> You continue to either fail to understand or seemingly more likely >>>>>> simply lie about the fact that every DD correctly simulated by any >>>>>> HH that can possibly exist cannot possibly reach past its own line >>>>>> 03. >>>>> >>>>> Only if the simulation of HH simulated by HH does not reach HH's >>>>> return, otherwise the simulation of DD would go to line 04. ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========