Path: ...!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 15:37:24 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 198 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 22:37:25 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5617c6a52e82e3edb2307f1199229213"; logging-data="3116729"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18EXLhiSsUAki46mzFm/VBr" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:3tGQJ5P//j+FlnnK/L5FRoMkhWo= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 10358 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. >>> >>>> >>>> *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 ==========