Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about
 this point
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2025 09:36:25 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 50
Message-ID: <102c49a$20jl4$11@dont-email.me>
References: <1025i6j$afk6$1@dont-email.me>
 <87h60pioab.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <1025kvd$aqju$2@dont-email.me>
 <87cybdin7o.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <1025mfg$b964$1@dont-email.me>
 <1026ct7$g0hl$1@dont-email.me> <1026rnn$j3rp$2@dont-email.me>
 <1028rj0$153ga$1@dont-email.me> <1029pq2$1ah2f$16@dont-email.me>
 <102btcm$1vij9$1@dont-email.me> <102c1sq$20jl4$1@dont-email.me>
 <5e6156d51b6c357ac1be59d6494b59338829f922@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2025 16:36:26 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c5844607f8c5789cdff36a135feed3c9";
	logging-data="2117284"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/RRZfnZoItMOK0jVi7FHAG"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:b1GaiVAENOTaOoprRii3iXWLTUo=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250611-2, 6/11/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <5e6156d51b6c357ac1be59d6494b59338829f922@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US

On 6/11/2025 9:34 AM, joes wrote:
> Am Wed, 11 Jun 2025 08:55:37 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>> On 6/11/2025 7:38 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 10.jun.2025 om 19:25 schreef olcott:
>>>> On 6/10/2025 3:49 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>> Op 09.jun.2025 om 16:39 schreef olcott:
>>>>>> On 6/9/2025 5:26 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> 
>>>>>>> Indeed, it shows that simulation is not the right way to try to
>>>>>>> refute the proof of the halting theorem, because a simulator will
>>>>>>> never be able to simulate itself correctly up to the end.
> That is the interesting part to me. Can somebody formalise or generalise
> this statement?
> 
>>>>>> It is ridiculously stupid to require a non-terminating input to be
>>>>>> simulated up to its non-existent end.
>>>>>>
>>>>> It is even more stupid to ignore the halting part of the input (with
>>>>> a premature abort) and claim it is not halting.
>>>>
>>>> It waiting forever is not long enough (and it is) then your idea about
>>>> "premature abort" is incorrect.
>>>
>>> Running one more cycle is enough to see the simulated abort (unless you
>>> change the input to another input specifying another program that needs
>>> again another cycle. That other input is only in your dream. The input
>>> specified in Halt7.c is the input we discuss.
>>>
>> So you aren't bright enough to understand that infinite recursion does
>> not halt on its own.
>> HHH waits until it sees that its input calls the same function with the
>> same parameters twice in sequence with no conditional branch inbetween
>> the beginning of DDD and its call to HHH(DDD). It does not matter that
>> there are conditional branch instructions in HHH because they cannot be
>> reached and none of them could possibly enable DDD simulated by HHH to
>> reach its own "return" statement final halt state.
> 
> What does HHH(HHH) return?
> 
>> I have told you this many times and you just aren't bright enough to
>> understand. That you are ignorant DOES NOT MAKE ME INCORRECT, IT MAKES
>> YOU INCORRECT.
> It makes you bad at explaining.
> 

I may be bad at explaining, that does not make me incorrect.

-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer