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.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Deciders are ONLY accountable for their actual inputs --- Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2024 14:03:42 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 108 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: Sun, 02 Jun 2024 21:03:43 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3e1a2626012d6c432c11247ed1bf0353"; logging-data="3642593"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+CsPFpltkgCzSxwpQKb2xk" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:QDGDMjmKMkgMqQevFB8ZoRBAOtc= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 6059 On 6/2/2024 1:57 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: > Op 02.jun.2024 om 20:46 schreef olcott: >> On 6/2/2024 1:39 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>> Op 02.jun.2024 om 15:56 schreef olcott: >>>> On 6/2/2024 3:08 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 2024-06-01 15:09:02 +0000, olcott said: >>>>> >>>>>> On 6/1/2024 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> On 2024-05-29 18:31:52 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *two dozen people were simply wrong* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why are people who are wrong so important that they deserve >>>>>>> a subject line? I would think that people who are right are >>>>>>> more interesting. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> This is the key mistake of the definition of the halting problem >>>>>> itself. >>>>>> Linz makes this same mistake. I already covered this extensively in >>>>>> another reply. >>>>> >>>>> The word "this" above does not denote anything so the first sentence >>>>> does not mean anything. The word "same" in the second sentence refers >>>>> to "this" in the first sentnece and therefore does not denote, either, >>>>> so the second sentence does not say anything either. So the third >>>>> sentence says that you covevered nothing. >>>>> >>>>>> That these two dozen different people are wrong about this shows that >>>>>> the only basis for any rebuttal of my proof for the last three >>>>>> years IS >>>>>> WRONG. >>>>> >>>>> That you claim that these two dozen people are wrong does not show >>>>> anything. It probably wouldn't even if you could show that they >>>>> really were wrong. >>>>> >>>> >>>> The only one that I am aware that is not wrong about the behavior >>>> that a simulating halt decider must report on is myself. >>>> >>>> Only software engineers will understand that DD correctly simulated >>>> by HH had different behavior than DD(DD). Comp Sci people allow Comp >>>> Sci >>>> dogma to overrule verified facts. >>>> >>>> When I pinned Richard down on this he simply said that he does not care >>>> that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD). >>>> >>>> It turns out that DD correctly simulated by HH the behavior that >>>> the input to HH(DD,DD) specifies. Deciders are ONLY accountable for >>>> their actual inputs. Deciders compute the mapping FROM THEIR INPUTS... >>>> >>>> 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       } >>>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> Only because the call to HH at [00001c2e] does not return, because HH >>> does not reach its own return in any finite (or infinite) number of >>> steps of correct emulation. >>> >> >> When HH correctly simulates DD and DD calls the simulated HH(DD,DD) >> to simulate itself again >> >> *this simulated HH is not required to halt* >> *this simulated HH is not required to halt* >> *this simulated HH is not required to halt* >> *this simulated HH is not required to halt* > > HH must halt. Therefore, a correct simulation of HH must halt, too. If > it doesn't, either the simulation is incorrect, or HH does not halt. > Maybe you have ADD like some of my reviewers where repetition helps *The directly executed HH must halt No simulated input must halt* *The directly executed HH must halt No simulated input must halt* *The directly executed HH must halt No simulated input must halt* *The directly executed HH must halt No simulated input must halt* *The directly executed HH must halt No simulated input must halt* *The directly executed HH must halt No simulated input must halt* *The directly executed HH must halt No simulated input must halt* *The directly executed HH must halt No simulated input must halt* *The directly executed HH must halt No simulated input must halt* *The directly executed HH must halt No simulated input must halt* -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer