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: ...!npeer.as286.net!npeer-ng0.as286.net!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.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 17:40:19 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 284
Message-ID:
References:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2024 00:40:20 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3e1a2626012d6c432c11247ed1bf0353";
logging-data="3158310"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX185rT2qh8qM9vPrdk1WELIM"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:YwviSJxs3+/Etq6IiMMdThYxNcw=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To:
Bytes: 14122
On 6/1/2024 5:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/1/24 5:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>> 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
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========