Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly
 reach its own return instruction final state? BUT ONLY that DDD
Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2024 07:12:37 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <1c483f9a972618a0db5c00e03b894c3fe6adc1fa@i2pn2.org>
References: <v8jh7m$30k55$1@dont-email.me> <v8lkdb$3h16a$1@dont-email.me>
 <5ee8b34a57f12b0630509183ffbd7c07804634b3@i2pn2.org>
 <v8ll4v$3h8m2$1@dont-email.me>
 <cbde765b8f9e769930b6c8589556907a41d9c256@i2pn2.org>
 <v8lm80$3h8m2$3@dont-email.me>
 <7295d80cad171cd65cc39845362189aa88adca4f@i2pn2.org>
 <v8lr4u$3iali$1@dont-email.me>
 <c949dfc8c7354f19a3a3d31325ee9847be91f333@i2pn2.org>
 <v8lt59$3iali$2@dont-email.me>
 <74c4fe66234c5332f4ec6032bc55cc6c5f038aee@i2pn2.org>
 <v8lv3a$3j30t$1@dont-email.me>
 <9fb36dd006e570bf987f882a8310bc13e8fc04a7@i2pn2.org>
 <v8m331$3ju7r$1@dont-email.me>
 <3ecbe8eddd0f3644c7045e937ccaf6ddc1cdb3a9@i2pn2.org>
 <v8m5a5$3kbok$1@dont-email.me>
 <de8528a486cdc94aec9fc7dc3d0195fdce3b4fbe@i2pn2.org>
 <v8m93b$3l8jv$1@dont-email.me>
 <c50f1d87c5e386a7c388c982a4f7da8c5889e493@i2pn2.org>
 <v8ma68$3lgfl$1@dont-email.me>
 <03571f185bf16590c5e535908467086b1efaffef@i2pn2.org>
 <v8meta$3ma4t$1@dont-email.me>
 <b1e8c0c9b69cc026f777b37bbd49af5d2afddd21@i2pn2.org>
 <v8mqt0$3s736$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2024 11:12:37 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1423572"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v8mqt0$3s736$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4711
Lines: 83

On 8/3/24 11:00 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/3/2024 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 8/3/24 7:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 8/3/2024 5:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 8/3/24 6:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 8/3/2024 5:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem is that every one of those emulation is of a 
>>>>>> *DIFFERENT* input, so they don't prove anything together except 
>>>>>> that each one didn't go far enough. 
>>>>>
>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>> {
>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>    return;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> When each HHH correctly emulates 0 to infinity steps of
>>>>> its corresponding DDD and none of them reach the "return"
>>>>> halt state of DDD then even the one that emulated infinite
>>>>> steps of DDD did not emulate enough steps?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Just says lying YOU.
>>>>
>>>> You got any source for that other than yourself?
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is self-evident and you know it. I do have four
>>> people (two with masters in CS) that attest to that.
>>> *It is as simple as I can possibly make it*
>>
>> Maybe to your mind filled with false facts, but it isn't true.
>>
>>>
>>> I wonder how you think that you are not swearing your
>>> allegiance to that father of lies?
>>
>> Because, I know I speak the truth.
>>
>> Why do you not think you are lying?
>>
>>>
>>> Anyone that truly understands infinite recursion knows
>>> that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach
>>> its own "return" final state.
>>
>> Right, but for every other HHH, which the ones that answer are, it 
>> isn't a fact.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Surpisingly (to me) Jeff Barnett set the record straight
>>> on exactly what halting means.
>>>
>>
>> No, there is one, and only one definition, it is a machine that 
>> reaches its final state.
>>
>> Note, *a machine*, not a (partial) emulation of the machine
>>
> 
> You already know that a complete emulation of a non-ending
> sequence is impossible and you already acknowledged that
> DDD emulated by HHH that never aborts is non-ending.
> 
> 
> 

WHy do you say it is impossible, it just takes forever, just like the 
non-halting machine it is emulating.

Yes, it is impossible for a decider to do that, but that is part of the 
point, that always being able to decide if a given input/data 
combination will halt can't be done with a finite computation.

Nothing says it needs to be able to be done with a finite computation.

It is just a fact that the mapping of Machine/Input -> Halting Status is 
an uncomputable mapping, just like a lot of others.

That is part of your problem, because of your confusion of Truth and 
Knowledge, you can't understand unprovable facts.