Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.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,comp.ai.philosophy Subject: Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2024 19:48:24 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 89 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2024 02:48:25 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2f28c05d249972130f2ddc6107b08476"; logging-data="3903923"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/dZuSeXvHfYpZFpCKu0CW6" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:9nvJgCHZLDPX8ZjWMtMKTfURkBo= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 4967 On 6/15/2024 7:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/15/24 8:05 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/15/2024 6:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/15/24 7:30 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/15/2024 6:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/15/24 5:56 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/15/2024 11:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/15/24 12:22 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/13/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>  > On 6/13/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>  >> >>>>>>>>  >> It is contingent upon you to show the exact steps of how H >>>>>>>> computes >>>>>>>>  >> the mapping from the x86 machine language finite string >>>>>>>> input to >>>>>>>>  >> H(D,D) using the finite string transformation rules >>>>>>>> specified by >>>>>>>>  >> the semantics of the x86 programming language that reaches the >>>>>>>>  >> behavior of the directly executed D(D) >>>>>>>>  >> >>>>>>>>  > >>>>>>>>  > Why? I don't claim it can. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The first six steps of this mapping are when instructions >>>>>>>> at the machine address range of [00000cfc] to [00000d06] >>>>>>>> are simulated/executed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> After that the behavior of D correctly simulated by H diverges >>>>>>>> from the behavior of D(D) because the call to H(D,D) by D >>>>>>>> correctly simulated by H cannot possibly return to D. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nope, the steps of D correctly simulated by H will EXACTLY match >>>>>>> the steps of D directly executed, until H just gives up and guesses. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> When we can see that D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly >>>>>> reach its simulated final state at machine address [00000d1d] >>>>>> after one recursive simulation and the same applies for 2,3,...N >>>>>> recursive simulations then we can abort the simulated input and >>>>>> correctly report that D correctly simulated by H DOES NOT HALT. >>>>> >>>>> Nope. Because an aborted simulation doesn't say anything about >>>>> Halting, >>>>> >>>> >>>> It is the mathematical induction that says this. >>>> >>> WHAT "Mathematical Induction"? >>> >> >> A proof by induction consists of two cases. The first, the base >> case, proves the statement for n = 0 without assuming any knowledge >> of other cases. The second case, the induction step, proves that >> if the statement holds for any given case n = k then it must also >> hold for the next case n = k + 1 These two steps establish that the >> statement holds for every natural number n. >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_induction > > Ok, so you can parrot to words. > >> >> It is true that after one recursive simulation of D correctly >> simulated by H that D does not reach its simulated final state >> at machine address [00000d1d]. > > Which means you consider that D has been bound to that first H, so you > have instruciton to simulate in the call H. > >> >> *We directly see this is true for every N thus no assumption needed* >> It is true that after N recursive simulations of D correctly >> simulated by H that D does not reach its simulated final state >> at machine address [00000d1d]. > > Nope, because to do the first step, you had to bind the definition of > the first H to D, and thus can not change it. So infinite sets are permanently beyond your grasp. The above D simulated by any H has the same property of never reaching its own simulated machine address at [00000d1d]. What I mistook for dishonestly is simply a lack of comprehension. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer