Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic Subject: Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong (including Olcott) Date: Wed, 29 May 2024 19:47:15 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: References: <87y17smqnq.fsf@bsb.me.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Wed, 29 May 2024 23:47:16 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="2613824"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 4245 Lines: 82 On 5/29/24 2:31 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/29/2024 1:14 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> Alan Mackenzie writes: >> >>> 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? >> >> He does it to try to rope more people in.  It's the same ploy as >> insulting people by name.  It's hard to ignore being maligned in public >> by a fool. >> > > *Thanks for validating my simplified encoding of the Linz* > > When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ > Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ > Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn > > I really did believe that Ben Bacarisse was lying when I said it. > > At the time I was talking about the easily verified fact of the actual > execution trace of fully operational code and everyone was denying the > easily verified facts. > > typedef int (*ptr)();  // ptr is pointer to int function in C > 00       int H(ptr p, ptr i); > 01       int D(ptr p) > 02       { > 03         int Halt_Status = H(p, p); > 04         if (Halt_Status) > 05           HERE: goto HERE; > 06         return Halt_Status; > 07       } > 08 > 09       int main() > 10       { > 11         H(D,D); > 12         return 0; > 13       } > > It turns out that two dozen people are easily proven wrong when > they claimed that the correct simulation of the input to H(D,D) > is the behavior of int main() { D(D); } > How is that? > When D is correctly simulated by H using an x86 emulator the only > way that the emulated D can reach its own emulated final state > at line 06 and halt is > (a) The x86 machine code of D is emulated incorrectly > (b) The x86 machine code of D is emulated in the wrong order > Which isn't a "Correct Simulation" by the definition that allow the relating of a "Simulation" to the behavior of an input. So, you are just proving your stupidity. > *two dozen people were simply wrong* > > It now turns out that Richard Damon was not lying when he referred > to the words of Peter Linz. > > It did seem ridiculous that the Linz proof merely proved that > a single machine does not get the correct answer to a specific > input. Since Linz actually did use the term "single Turing machine" > I now see that was an honest mistake. > >    The domain of this problem is to be taken as the set of all >    Turing machines and all w; that is, we are looking for a >    *single Turing machine* that, given the description of an arbitrary >    M and w, will predict whether or not the computation of M applied >    to w will halt > Yep, you do that A LOT, which shows your reckless disregard for the truth. Now, after proving that a specific (but arbitrarily chosen) H is wrong, he is able to use categorical logic to show that NO H can be correct. Something that seems to be beyond your understand.