Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Sufficient knowledge of C proves that DD specifies
 non-terminating behavior to HHH
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2025 19:38:25 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <464bbb75139bc9d44f8cef206f3958603f16ec0d@i2pn2.org>
References: <vnumf8$24cq0$1@dont-email.me> <vo7qqb$36ra$2@dont-email.me>
 <vo8jr6$7fbd$2@dont-email.me> <vo9gth$fuct$2@dont-email.me>
 <vo9o3h$gu6t$2@dont-email.me> <voah0r$m3dj$6@dont-email.me>
 <voambu$ng5r$2@dont-email.me> <voamvc$nv62$1@dont-email.me>
 <voatki$p4au$2@dont-email.me> <voau7d$p4sc$2@dont-email.me>
 <voavuf$p4au$4@dont-email.me> <vob15v$ptj9$1@dont-email.me>
 <vocd0e$14a92$1@dont-email.me> <vocp7p$16c4e$2@dont-email.me>
 <vocqjl$16qj7$1@dont-email.me> <vocrbl$16uuv$1@dont-email.me>
 <vodh9d$1ar1l$1@dont-email.me> <vodo13$1ccae$1@dont-email.me>
 <f4a1a9c106d4490f0ede6900ed3327ea4110624a@i2pn2.org>
 <vofne1$1qh2r$1@dont-email.me> <vofsqb$1q3mf$2@dont-email.me>
 <voftfg$1rkco$2@dont-email.me> <vofupe$1q3mf$3@dont-email.me>
 <vojrgb$2oikq$2@dont-email.me> <vokiuo$2s1tr$1@dont-email.me>
 <vom1jj$34osr$2@dont-email.me>
 <bf2ebcb7fa687306a75c0a85d0fd2dc959898d92@i2pn2.org>
 <vomgag$3anm4$1@dont-email.me>
 <8be76c6ce027ec61028d5081e95717b145b70f24@i2pn2.org>
 <voojie$3mdke$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2025 00:38:26 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="81938"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <voojie$3mdke$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 7720
Lines: 117

On 2/14/25 6:28 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/14/2025 6:53 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Thu, 13 Feb 2025 22:20:32 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 2/13/2025 9:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/13/25 7:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/13/2025 4:53 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 13.feb.2025 om 05:12 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>> On 2/11/2025 10:44 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>> Op 11.feb.2025 om 17:22 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2025 10:10 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Op 11.feb.2025 om 15:38 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2025 1:28 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Mon, 10 Feb 2025 14:36:51 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/10/2025 12:41 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 10.feb.2025 om 13:27 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/10/2025 6:14 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 10.feb.2025 om 12:51 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/10/2025 2:22 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 09.feb.2025 om 20:54 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/9/2025 1:33 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 09.feb.2025 om 20:04 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/9/2025 12:54 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 09.feb.2025 om 18:00 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/9/2025 10:50 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 09.feb.2025 om 16:18 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/9/2025 2:13 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 09.feb.2025 om 07:10 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/2025 3:54 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 08.feb.2025 om 15:47 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/2025 3:57 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 08.feb.2025 om 06:53 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/7/2025 7:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/7/25 8:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/7/2025 5:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/7/25 11:26 AM, olcott wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, in other words, Olcott denies verified facts. HHH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generates false negatives, as is verified in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>           int main() {           return
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>           HHH(main);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>           }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but he denies it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He lacks the ability to accept simple verified facts,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which he tries to hide with a lot of irrelevant
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is a verified fact that main cannot possibly be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly simulated by HHH until its normal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> termination.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Indeed, which proves that HHH is unable to simulate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself correctly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If this was true then you could point out exactly where
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is true as a verified fact and has been pointed out to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott many times, but he refuses to learn. So, again:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is a verified fact that main halts,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is a verified fact that the input to HHH(main) cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly terminate normally.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, the verified fact is that the input can terminatie
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> normally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The directly executed main IS NOT THE INPUT TO HHH.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This main is a program that includes all functions called
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> directly and indirectly, including HHH.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The input to HHH(main) when correctly simulated by HHH cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly terminate normally.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The input to HHH, which is main(), terminates. HHH does not
>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The directly executed main() is not the same instance of main()
>>>>>>>>>>> that is input to HHH and simulated by HHH.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The directly executed main() relies on HHH aborting the
>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of its input. HHH cannot rely on anything else
>>>>>>>>>>> aborting the simulation of its input.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The simulating HHH should rely on the simulated HHH to abort.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That cannot possibly work. The executed HHH always sees at least
>>>>>>>>> one more full execution trace than any inner HHH ever sees.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Indeed, that is what I said, but Olcott deleted it in the citation.
>>>>>>>> HHH cannot do what it should do. So, he proves the halting theorem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the sentence it false it does not become true in some greater
>>>>>>> context.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Indeed and since it is false that the simulated HHH would not abort,
>>>>>
>>>>> This is simply beyond your skill level.
>>>>> Since each HHH is exactly the same unless the first one aborts none of
>>>>> them do.
>>>>>
>>>> But the first one DOES abort, as that is how it was defined to be.
>>>>
>>>> And thus, the one that DD calls aborts.
>>>>
>>> A program that is no longer being simulated DOES NOTHING
>>
>> Hey, let me prove all programs are no-ops, by NOT SIMULATING THEM MWAHAHA
>>
> 
> DD correctly simulated  by HHH cannot possibly terminate normally.
> 
> 

The problem is your HHH doesn't do that, so your are baseing your logic 
on a LIE.

You don't understand what a "Program" which just breaks all your logic, 
as you need HHH to be two different things at once, which is just the 
contradiction that blows up your logic.