Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: key error in all the proofs --- Correction of Fred
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 18:28:26 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <4c2f1e79e2f68e34c109badeb13327111a1a503b@i2pn2.org>
References: <v8jh7m$30k55$1@dont-email.me> <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>
	<0a080ae812729bc25f3c2dab98bb4d9dfac6641d@i2pn2.org>
	<v9npsa$1flup$1@dont-email.me>
	<b2d424392298da7dc7b6c6937f18329f277fcde7@i2pn2.org>
	<v9ns6p$1fvsr$1@dont-email.me>
	<0b16013ea170d361a72f11d7cf046bd836b7aea6@i2pn2.org>
	<v9ntpl$1g6ln$1@dont-email.me>
	<b6c7d1e0da17d7a32a37b49cd8c197295cf59c9d@i2pn2.org>
	<v9o14j$1gkn7$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 18:28:26 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2749386"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4081
Lines: 49

Am Fri, 16 Aug 2024 12:09:38 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 8/16/2024 11:41 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 8/16/24 12:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 8/16/2024 11:00 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 8/16/24 11:45 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 8/16/2024 10:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/16/24 11:05 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/16/2024 9:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/16/24 10:42 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 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:

>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>> HHH must predict what the behavior of an unlimited simulation
>>>>>>>>> would be.
>>>>>>>> Right, unlimited emulation of the EXACT input that HHH got, that
>>>>>>>> is the DDD that calls the HHH that is the decider
>>>>>>> PREDICT WHAT THE BEHAVIOR WOULD BE IF IT WAS AN UNLIMITED 
EMULATION
To clarify: if itself wouldn't abort, not: if it's input wouldn't abort.

>>>> Right, and the input to the Halt Decider HHH is the DDD that calls
>>>> the Halt Decider HHH, not the DDD that calls the unlimited emulator
>>>> HHH.
THIS
>>> You can't get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86
>>> language.
Not even happening.
>> Which isn't a program, so doesn't HAVE a complete behavior per the
>> semantics of the x86 language,
> It is isomorphic to a program and to a Turing Machine.
See below:
>> You need to include the code of HHH at 000015d2, and since that code,
>> as you have provided it elsewhere DOES return to its caller when given
>> this input, shows that by the x86 semantics, DDD is a halting program.
> I have conclusively proved that it has been obviously doing this for
> three years.
Unfortunately you must have misread.

> THE INPUT TO HHH(DDD) CANNOT POSSIBLY REACH ITS RETURN INSTRUCTION THUS
> DOES NOT HALT.
The input DDD does halt.

-- 
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.