Path: ...!news.nobody.at!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: sci.logic
Subject: Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@
Date: Wed, 08 May 2024 22:30:41 +0800
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 168
Message-ID: <1cd6aaae52b9dec5cb3dfd85320faf5703bc464b.camel@gmail.com>
References: <v18e32$1vbql$1@dont-email.me> <v1avuv$2lks2$1@dont-email.me>
	 <v1b7gl$2ndka$1@dont-email.me> <v1c2ng$9f73$2@i2pn2.org>
	 <v1c43h$3168a$1@dont-email.me> <v1c6g2$9f72$6@i2pn2.org>
	 <v1c7ph$31thl$2@dont-email.me> <v1c8ne$9f72$7@i2pn2.org>
	 <v1c8s6$3242s$1@dont-email.me> <v1c9gn$9f73$5@i2pn2.org>
	 <v1c9m6$325ls$1@dont-email.me> <v1d2kp$9f72$10@i2pn2.org>
	 <v1doi3$3cndh$1@dont-email.me> <v1eaov$ca07$1@i2pn2.org>
	 <v1edj0$3he4j$1@dont-email.me> <v1eo28$cp5r$2@i2pn2.org>
	 <v1eokj$3nb4c$2@dont-email.me> <v1epbn$cp5s$7@i2pn2.org>
	 <v1erj8$3o05s$1@dont-email.me> <v1fo8m$dt8i$3@i2pn2.org>
	 <v1fu99$3vngj$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Injection-Date: Wed, 08 May 2024 16:30:44 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="77986bdcaaf0838b075a0cc86bfad0ee";
	logging-data="10937"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19myWOY+SQT9a9IGclCuGZG"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.50.2 (3.50.2-1.fc39)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:XN+uKWdKR9Cq/cH/qTDtPbLReAY=
In-Reply-To: <v1fu99$3vngj$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 7779

On Wed, 2024-05-08 at 08:21 -0500, olcott wrote:
> On 5/8/2024 6:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > On 5/7/24 11:29 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > On 5/7/2024 9:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > On 5/7/24 10:39 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > On 5/7/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > On 5/7/24 7:30 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > On 5/7/2024 5:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > On 5/7/24 1:31 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > Once someone has definitely proven to not be telling the =
truth
> > > > > > > > > about any specific point it is correct to assume any othe=
r
> > > > > > > > > assertions about this same point are also false until evi=
dence
> > > > > > > > > arises to the contrary.
> > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > Then I guess we can just go and ignore everything you have =
said.
> > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > PERIOD.
> > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this =
point*
> > > > > > > *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this =
point*
> > > > > > > *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this =
point*
> > > > > > > *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this =
point*
> > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > Message-ID: <v0ummt$2qov3$2@i2pn2.org>
> > > > > > > *When you interpret*
> > > > > > > On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > =C2=A0> On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > *Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
> > > > > > > *stop running unless aborted by H*
> > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > as *D NEVER simulated by H*
> > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth
> > > > > > > that would win a defamation case.
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > > Nope, It is clear you don't understand the logic of qualifiers.
> > > > > >=20
> > > > >=20
> > > > > *Prove it on this point*
> > > > > Exactly how can ALWAYS: =E2=88=80x be construed as NEVER: =E2=88=
=84x
> > > >=20
> > > > if there are no x.
> > > >=20
> > >=20
> > > 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x)=C2=A0 // ptr is pointer to int function
> > > 01 int D(ptr x)
> > > 02 {
> > > 03=C2=A0=C2=A0 int Halt_Status =3D H(x, x);
> > > 04=C2=A0=C2=A0 if (Halt_Status)
> > > 05=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 HERE: goto HERE;
> > > 06=C2=A0=C2=A0 return Halt_Status;
> > > 07 }
> > > 08
> > > 09 int main()
> > > 10 {
> > > 11=C2=A0=C2=A0 H(D,D);
> > > 12 }
> > >=20
> > > The above template defines an infinite set of finite string H/D pairs=
=20
> > > where each D(D) that is simulated by H(D,D) also calls this same H(D,=
D).
> > >=20
> > > I have one concrete fully operational instance of H/D pairs so
> > > we know that more than zero of them exist.
> > >=20
> > > I can adapt this one concrete instance to be the 7 shown below and
> > > we can extrapolate the trend from there:
> > >=20
> > > 1st element of H/D pairs 1 step of D is simulated by H
> > > 2nd element of H/D pairs 2 steps of D are simulated by H
> > > 3rd element of H/D pairs 3 steps of D are simulated by H
> > >=20
> > > 4th element of H/D pairs 4 steps of D are simulated by H
> > > this begins the first recursive simulation at line 01
> > >=20
> > > 5th element of H/D pairs 5 steps of D are simulated by
> > > next step of the first recursive simulation at line 02
> > >=20
> > > 6th element of H/D pairs 6 steps of D are simulated by
> > > last step of the first recursive simulation at line 03
> > >=20
> > > 7th element of H/D pairs 7 steps of D are simulated by H
> > > this begins the second recursive simulation at line 01
> > >=20
> > >=20
> > > But some is not all.
> >=20
> > Thus, you demonstrate that you do not know how logic works, but think=
=20
> > that proof by example is a valid proof method for universal qualifiers.
> >=20
>=20
>=20
> The template specifies that D(D) is calling the same H(D,D)
> that invokes it. All instances conform to the template.
>=20
> I have one concrete instance as fully operational code.
> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
> line 555 u32 HH(ptr P, ptr I) its input in on
> line 932 int DD(int (*x)())
>=20
> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x)=C2=A0 // ptr is pointer to int function
> 01 int D(ptr x)
> 02 {
> 03=C2=A0=C2=A0 int Halt_Status =3D H(x, x);
> 04=C2=A0=C2=A0 if (Halt_Status)
> 05=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 HERE: goto HERE;
> 06=C2=A0=C2=A0 return Halt_Status;
> 07 }
> 08
> 09 int main()
> 10 {
> 11=C2=A0=C2=A0 H(D,D);
> 12 }
>=20
> The above template specifies an infinite set of finite string H/D pairs
> where each D(D) that is simulated by H(D,D) also calls this same H(D,D).
>=20
> I have one concrete fully operational instance of H/D pairs so
> we know that more than zero of them exist.
>=20
> I can adapt this one concrete instance to be the 7 shown below and
> we can extrapolate the trend from there:
>=20
> 1st element of H/D pairs 1 step of D is simulated by H
> 2nd element of H/D pairs 2 steps of D are simulated by H
> 3rd element of H/D pairs 3 steps of D are simulated by H
>=20
> 4th element of H/D pairs 4 steps of D are simulated by H
> this begins the first recursive simulation at line 01
>=20
> 5th element of H/D pairs 5 steps of D are simulated by
> next step of the first recursive simulation at line 02
>=20
> 6th element of H/D pairs 6 steps of D are simulated by
> last step of the first recursive simulation at line 03
>=20
> 7th element of H/D pairs 7 steps of D are simulated by H
> this begins the second recursive simulation at line 01
>=20
> 8th element of H/D pairs 8 steps of D are simulated by H
> next step of the second recursive simulation at line 02
>=20
> 9th element of H/D pairs 9 steps of D are simulated by H
> this ends the second recursive simulation before line 03
>=20
>=20
> > The fact that I have shown how to build an H that does what you say no =
H=20
> > can do shows your "proof" is wrong, and thus your basic logic is incorr=
ect.
> >=20
> > PROVEN.
>=20

You are solving POOP. Why do you changed the Halting Problem to POOP?