Path: ...!news.misty.com!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 --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2024 16:29:29 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2024 20:29:29 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="2856055"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 9343 Lines: 175 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. >> >>> >>> *THIS MEANS THAT THE INPUT TO HH(DD,DD) DOES NOT HALT* >>> *THIS MEANS THAT THE INPUT TO HH(DD,DD) DOES NOT HALT* >>> *THIS MEANS THAT THE INPUT TO HH(DD,DD) DOES NOT HALT* >>> >> >> If true: The input to HH is both DD and HH called by DD, so both DD ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========