Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2024 14:08:55 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: References: <87h6eamkgf.fsf@bsb.me.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:08:55 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="3621673"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 4194 Lines: 87 On 6/9/24 9:27 AM, olcott wrote: > On 6/9/2024 3:09 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2024-06-08 12:42:47 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> On 6/8/2024 1:13 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2024-06-07 22:27:22 +0000, olcott said: >>>> >>>>> On 6/7/2024 4:02 PM, joes wrote: >>>>>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 09:09:54 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>> On 6/7/2024 1:22 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2024-06-06 15:18:21 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> All halt deciders are only allowed to report on the actual >>>>>>> behavior of >>>>>>> their actual input. >>>>>  > >>>>>> Required even! And if they simulate, that simulation must match the >>>>>> behaviour. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The most persistent false assumption that cannot possibly >>>>> be corrected without expertise in the x86 programming language. >>>>> Some people here have that. >>>> >>>> Not true. An expert of simulation and simulators need not know >>>> anything about x86. If you cannot correct a false assumption >>>> about simulations without expertise in the x86 programming language >>>> then you cannot correct it with that expertise, either. >>> >>> Basically you are admitting that you don't have what it takes >>> and trying to incorrect get away with sating that it doesn't matter. >> >> I do know but that is not relevant to this discussion. >> >>> People that know C have been able to understand this too. >> >> I do know C, at least older versions. But that is not relevant, >> either. >> > > Sure it is. > > typedef void (*ptr)(); // pointer to void function > > void HHH(ptr P, ptr I) > { >   P(I); > } > > void DDD(int (*x)()) > { >   HHH(x, x); > } > > int main() > { >   HHH(DDD,DDD); > } > > If you can't tell what is going on there then you > lack the minimum required prerequisite knowledge. But is irrelevent to the case described below, since your above HHH is NOT a simulating decider. You are just proving your logic is based on telling lies. > >>> For people that are stuck in rebuttal mode I must make it as >>> precise as arithmetic so rebuttal looks ridiculously foolish. >> >> Roughly so. Otherwise people who are not stuck in rebuttal mode >> will look ridiculously foolish. >> >>> This did work on Richard. He went from denying what I said >>> with the strawman deception to saying that he never said it >>> was incorrect. >> >> It does not really matter whether your straw man and other >> deceptions are incorrect. Being a deception is incorrect >> enough. >> >> The easiest way to avoid lying about other people is to >> say nothing about them. >> >