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: key error in all the proofs --- Correction of Fred
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 13:54:21 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <2c13788e85c998e11a449b633b6b8464521c1433@i2pn2.org>
References: <v8jh7m$30k55$1@dont-email.me> <v9dk2j$3dp9h$1@dont-email.me>
 <8318f5969aa3074e542747fe6ba2916d7f599bde@i2pn2.org>
 <TyKdnc3hCNvmUyf7nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <v9ekta$3necg$1@dont-email.me>
 <2f8c1b0943d03743fe9894937092bc2832e0a029@i2pn2.org>
 <v9fn50$3ta4u$2@dont-email.me> <v9hmfc$c71c$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9ic89$f16v$6@dont-email.me>
 <06ea0f3a1ff938643b3dfefdf62af15559593733@i2pn2.org>
 <v9iqgc$go4j$2@dont-email.me>
 <LcucnRYb5ZiYhyD7nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <v9j6ci$jo32$1@dont-email.me> <v9kdp9$srkm$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9ku3k$v95g$1@dont-email.me> <v9nbqr$1dmui$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9nf3o$1dvef$3@dont-email.me> <v9nkhd$1ertd$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9nmj5$1f34m$1@dont-email.me>
 <6590517a070695b81751db1b64c3d26019ee9b13@i2pn2.org>
 <v9nog5$1fe76$1@dont-email.me>
 <34a22fd138e2e1e41a4dd29cd6c9016064e2343c@i2pn2.org>
 <v9npus$1flup$2@dont-email.me>
 <e9c7ddb8dc4b4b03399d064d634f11297501e49d@i2pn2.org>
 <v9o183$1gkn7$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 17:54:22 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2803750"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v9o183$1gkn7$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3532
Lines: 37

On 8/16/24 1:11 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/16/2024 11:47 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Fri, 16 Aug 2024 10:07:08 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 8/16/2024 9:59 AM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Fri, 16 Aug 2024 09:42:13 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> On 8/16/2024 9:28 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/16/24 10:09 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/16/2024 8:34 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-08-16 12:02:00 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>>>> Unless an unlimited emulation of DDD by HHH can reach the "return"
>>>>>>> instruction of DDD it is construed that this instance of DDD never
>>>>>>> halts.
>>>>>> But that also construes that HHH is a program that DOES an unlimited
>>>>>> emulation of DDD, and thus isn't a decider
>>>>> Not at all. never has.
>>>> Yes, because DDD is defined to call its simulator. If you change the
>>>> simulator to abort, you also change the simulated HHH. Nobody cares
>>>> about HHH aborting a pure simulator.
>>
>>>>> HHH must predict what the behavior of an unlimited simulation would
>>>>> be.
>>>> The HHH that aborts must predict what DDD calling an aborting HHH does
>>> NOT AT ALL, NEVER HAS.
>>> PREDICT WHAT THE BEHAVIOR WOULD BE
>>> IF IT WAS AN UNLIMITED EMULATION
>> Yes, an unlimited simulation of an aborting HHH. 
> 
> Prediction of behavior of unlimited emulation
> means prediction of behavior that never aborts.
> 

Right, but the unlimited emulation of the DDD that calls the HHH that 
says non-halting will reach a final state.

You are just proving that you don't understand the meaning of the words 
you are using, and don't care about the actual meaing, making you into a 
pathological liar.