Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? Liar
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2024 21:47:44 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <bc042961bf611736521a078e12ceb2d501756134@i2pn2.org>
References: <v5vkun$1b0k9$1@dont-email.me> <v60dci$1ib5p$1@dont-email.me>
 <v60red$1kr1q$2@dont-email.me> <v61hn7$1oec9$1@dont-email.me>
 <v61ipa$1og2o$2@dont-email.me> <v61jod$1oec9$2@dont-email.me>
 <v61leu$1p1uo$1@dont-email.me>
 <dd109397687b2f8e74c3e1e3d826772db8b65e40@i2pn2.org>
 <v62i31$21b7a$1@dont-email.me>
 <d593179ccad2eef1e84ab6eeddb0f255b2b386e5@i2pn2.org>
 <v63ml8$27f1a$2@dont-email.me>
 <1f93b46b7624427c02acebc57460bf5364a0bada@i2pn2.org>
 <v64r25$2e7d4$2@dont-email.me>
 <1f019b9b9aa0948c049e3351a0970975d83e8bbb@i2pn2.org>
 <v64to4$2egej$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 01:47:44 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2057084"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v64to4$2egej$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 6401
Lines: 124

On 7/3/24 9:26 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/3/2024 8:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/3/24 8:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/3/2024 6:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 7/3/24 10:19 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/3/2024 9:11 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>> Am Tue, 02 Jul 2024 22:55:12 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 10:50 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>> Am Tue, 02 Jul 2024 14:46:38 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 2:17 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Op 02.jul.2024 om 21:00 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 1:42 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 02.jul.2024 om 14:22 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 3:22 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 02.jul.2024 om 03:25 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> HHH repeats the process twice and aborts too soon.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> DDD is correctly emulated by any HHH that can exist which calls 
>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>> emulated HHH(DDD) to repeat the process until aborted (which 
>>>>>>>>> may be
>>>>>>>>> never).
>>>>>>>> Whatever HHH does, it does not run forever but aborts.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> HHH halts on input DDD.
>>>>>>> DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly halt.
>>>>>> WTF? It only calls HHH, which you just said halts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> An aborted simulation does not count as halting.
>>>>
>>>> And doesn't show non-halting either.
>>>>
>>>>> Reaching it own machine address 00002183 counts as halting.
>>>>> DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly do that.
>>>>
>>>> But HHH doesn't DO a "Correct Simulation" that can show that, it 
>>>> only does a PARTIAL simulation.
>>>>
>>>
>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>>      If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>>>      until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
>>>      stop running unless aborted then
>>>
>>>      H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>>      specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>>
>>> until H correctly determines
>>> until H correctly determines
>>> until H correctly determines
>>> until H correctly determines
>>> until H correctly determines
>>> until H correctly determines
>>> until H correctly determines
>>
>> Which it doesn't.
>>
>>>
>>> THUS STIPULATING THAT A PARTIAL SIMULATION IS CORRECT
>>> THUS STIPULATING THAT A PARTIAL SIMULATION IS CORRECT
>>> THUS STIPULATING THAT A PARTIAL SIMULATION IS CORRECT
>>> THUS STIPULATING THAT A PARTIAL SIMULATION IS CORRECT
>>> THUS STIPULATING THAT A PARTIAL SIMULATION IS CORRECT
>>> THUS STIPULATING THAT A PARTIAL SIMULATION IS CORRECT
>>> THUS STIPULATING THAT A PARTIAL SIMULATION IS CORRECT
>>>
>>
>> Nope, just double talk.
>>
>> H never CORRECTLY determined that a CORRECT SIMULATION (which means 
>> one that matchs the behavior of the machine represented by the input) 
>> would never halt, sinc ehta tmachine halts.
>>
> 
> _DDD()
> [00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
> [00002173] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
> [0000217f] 83c404     add esp,+04
> [00002182] 5d         pop ebp
> [00002183] c3         ret
> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
> 
> OK so it is not your ADD you continue to insist that
> you can disagree with the x86 language that conclusively
> proves that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot
> possibly get past machine instruction 0000217a.

No, the claim is that it isn't the simulation by HHH that determines the 
actual behavior of the input, but the detailed semantics of the x86 
instruciton set of the WHOLE input (which includes this particular HHH 
which you say DOES abort its simulation and return). When we remember 
that the definition of every x86 instruction includes what is the next 
instruction that WILL run after it, the ONLY result of that semantic 
meaning is the COMPLETE emulation of the full code of the input.

THAT HALTS since you have indicated that HHH does return.

> 
> When you say that it must be a complete simulation I have
> proved that aspect is a lie. You have know it was a lie
> all of the hundreds of times that you said it.
> 
>

How?

You CLAIM it to be a lie, but you can't actually quote any actual fact 
that makes it so.

This is just like your nonsense diagonalization proof that you didn't have.

As I have pointed out, you CAN'T make the simulation by HHH "THE 
BEHAVIOR OF THE INPUT" as that behavior now is dependent on something 
that isn't part of it.

That is like asking, "Was is the the sum of two plus?"

YOu are just stuck with your broken subjective question when it needs to 
be Objective.