Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
Subject: Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- PROOF
 THAT I AM CORRECT
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2025 16:38:07 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 113
Message-ID: <1039t3v$opkl$2@dont-email.me>
References: <102n9bo$13mp8$3@dont-email.me> <102om2v$1h6pn$2@dont-email.me>
 <102q5m6$1tklk$1@dont-email.me> <102rcg2$29lrl$1@dont-email.me>
 <102rugu$2doc9$8@dont-email.me> <102u1a5$31q0f$1@dont-email.me>
 <102umo0$369b2$13@dont-email.me> <1030jah$3pfos$1@dont-email.me>
 <1031a1m$3u901$9@dont-email.me> <1033aej$m26r$5@dont-email.me>
 <1033sll$2uqj$2@dont-email.me>
 <4d0b60860a2a1bb37153ada4aad5d3595d1c8fc2@i2pn2.org>
 <10344l1$4ms9$3@dont-email.me>
 <c26ffae53a9518cfe08b7a2083cd75e4c99eac55@i2pn2.org>
 <1036jm0$14sj8$3@dont-email.me>
 <d2fcfb9ec64f039e79b236971954c25c8fa31262@i2pn2.org>
 <103785n$195fs$3@dont-email.me>
 <9d7fde9eb682ca638a83aec2bff016c32d8f4b15@i2pn2.org>
 <1039681$j159$6@dont-email.me>
 <f9a3765be03e671e4537f3a96dbce869c80269a9@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2025 23:38:08 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="66fa87458275bba6d41e4f6f2917b163";
	logging-data="812693"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+M5A3fTQq3vxEP+rm9857r"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:KwCJXGswbr5H/CRPHDFHNA77XQk=
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <f9a3765be03e671e4537f3a96dbce869c80269a9@i2pn2.org>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250622-4, 6/22/2025), Outbound message

On 6/22/2025 4:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/22/25 11:07 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/22/2025 6:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/21/25 5:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/21/2025 3:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/21/25 11:38 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/20/2025 7:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/20/25 1:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2025 10:27 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Am Fri, 20 Jun 2025 09:53:41 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2025 4:42 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Op 19.jun.2025 om 17:23 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2025 3:55 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 18.jun.2025 om 17:41 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/18/2025 4:36 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 17.jun.2025 om 16:36 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Indeed, HHH fails to reach the end of the simulation, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even though
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the end is only one cycle further from the point where it 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gave up
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is counter-factual and over-your-head.
>>>>>>>>> It was an agreement.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No evidence presented for this claim. Dreaming again?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even a beginner understands that when HHH has code to abort 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and halt,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the simulated HHH runs one cycle behind the simulating HHH, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> so that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> when the simulating HHH aborts, the simulated HHH is only 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> one cycle
>>>>>>>>>>>>> away from the same point.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Proving that you do not understand what unreachable code is.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Even a beginner understands that when HHH has code to abort 
>>>>>>>>>>> and halt,
>>>>>>>>>>> the simulated HHH runs one cycle behind the simulating HHH, 
>>>>>>>>>>> so that
>>>>>>>>>>> when the simulating HHH aborts, the simulated HHH is only one 
>>>>>>>>>>> cycle
>>>>>>>>>>> away from the same point.
>>>>>>>>>> Yes this is factual.
>>>>>>>>> Lol, that was the same paragraph.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Every simulated HHH remains one cycle behind its simulator no 
>>>>>>>>>> matter how
>>>>>>>>>> deep the recursive simulations go. This means that the outermost
>>>>>>>>>> directly executed HHH reaches its abort criteria first.
>>>>>>>>> Yes, no simulator can proceed past a call to itself.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That is counter-factual and it you knew c well
>>>>>>>> enough you could verify that is counter-factual.
>>>>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which shows that HHH never correctly simulates its input, as it 
>>>>>>> always will abort its simulation, and a partial simulation is 
>>>>>>> never a correct simulation by the term-of-art definition.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> HHH emulates N x86 machine language instructions of
>>>>>> DDD according to the semantics of the x86 language,
>>>>>> thus necessarily emulates these N instructions correctly.
>>>>>> This also requires HHH to emulate itself emulating DDD
>>>>>> at least once.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which isn't the definition of "Correct Emulation",
>>>> *It is the definition of a correct emulation of N instructions*
>>>> That you believe that a correct emulation is a complete emulation
>>>> of a non terminating input is self-contradictory. Even my close
>>>> friend with a 73 IQ knows that contradiction proves falsity.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Which isn't the correct simulation of the input.
>>>
>>
>> A correct simulation of N instructions is
>> A correct simulation of N instructions
>> in the same way that 1 == 1.
>>
>> ChatGPT itself recognizes the repeating pattern
>> shown in N steps of DD correctly simulated by HHH.
>>
>> I never have been able to understand how refusing
>> to acknowledge this was anything other than dishonesty.
>>
>> void DDD()
>> {
>>    HHH(DDD);
>>    return;
>> }
>>
>> Anyone that knows what infinite recursion is should
>> be able to immediately see that DDD correctly simulated
>> by HHH cannot possibly reach its own "return" statement
>> final halt state.
> 
> But it is *NOT* a correct simulation of ALL, 
Richard is such a liar that he disagrees that when HHH
correctly simulates N instructions of DDD this does not
mean that N instructions of DDD were correctly simulated.

No one here is stupid enough to reject the law of identity:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_identity
thus Richard must be lying.

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