Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant?
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2024 08:24:35 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 70
Message-ID: <v63jej$26loi$6@dont-email.me>
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> <v632ta$23ohm$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2024 15:24:35 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="29a678b7ecb7074967021c8dcb9f1179";
	logging-data="2316050"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/RFeIMIx72OeqgqoiPK2Q5"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:sUxGi2dBB3LtHksfA5lGEWMTzo4=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v632ta$23ohm$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4134

On 7/3/2024 3:42 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 03.jul.2024 om 05:55 schreef 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:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Every C programmer that knows what an x86 emulator is knows that
>>>>>>>>>> when HHH emulates the machine language of Infinite_Loop,
>>>>>>>>>> Infinite_Recursion, and DDD that it must abort these 
>>>>>>>>>> emulations so
>>>>>>>>>> that itself can terminate normally.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Whether or not it *must* abort is not very relevant.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This <is> the problem that I am willing to discuss.
>>>>>>>> I am unwilling to discuss any other problem.
>>>>>>>> This does meet the Sipser approved criteria.
>>>
>>>>>>> Repeating the same thing that has already been proved to be
>>>>>>> irrelevant does not bring the discussion any further.
>>>>>>> Sipser is not relevant, because that is about a correct simulation.
>>>>>>> Your simulation is not correct.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you disagree with this you are either dishonest or clueless I no
>>>>>> longer care which one.
>>>
>>>>>> DDD is correctly emulated by HHH which calls an emulated HHH(DDD) to
>>>>>> repeat the process until aborted.
>>>>>
>>>>> HHH repeats the process twice and aborts too soon.
>>>>
>>>> You are freaking thinking too damn narrow minded.
>>>> 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.
>>
>> void DDD()
>> {
>>    HHH(DDD);
>> }
>>
>> DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly halt.
>>
> 
> That would be an error of the simulator, because it aborts its own 
> simulation too soon, one cycle before the simulated HHH would return and 

You dishonestly redefined the problem so that it has no correct answer.

> then DDD would return as well. A correct simulation would show that.
> (And you have shown such correct simulations!)
> So, your set of "DDD correctly simulated by HHH" is proved to be empty.
> It makes no sense to discuss whether an empty set halts or not.
> Try to broaden your mind. We are trying to help you. Try to learn 
> something, instead of repeatedly running in baseless circles of reasoning.
> 

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer