Path: ...!news.misty.com!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: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is INcorrectly rejected as
 non-halting.
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2024 14:22:31 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <54be8d37583194dcdd8a912804795efcad224113@i2pn2.org>
References: <v6m7si$1uq86$2@dont-email.me> <v6mhc7$20hbo$2@dont-email.me>
 <v6mito$bbr$1@news.muc.de> <v6mjlg$20sio$2@dont-email.me>
 <v6mlfj$bbr$2@news.muc.de> <v6mlk6$21d9q$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6nu2n$2bepp$1@dont-email.me> <v6op7v$2fuva$5@dont-email.me>
 <v6qoms$2ukg7$1@dont-email.me> <v6rat7$30qtt$8@dont-email.me>
 <v6repr$32501$2@dont-email.me> <v6tbpe$3gg4d$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6traj$3imib$7@dont-email.me> <v703f7$2ooi$2@dont-email.me>
 <v70of6$61d8$8@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2024 18:22:31 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3273011"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v70of6$61d8$8@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6986
Lines: 139

On 7/14/24 10:48 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/14/2024 3:49 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-07-13 12:18:27 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 7/13/2024 2:53 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-07-12 14:32:28 +0000, Fred. Zwarts said:
>>>>
>>>>> Op 12.jul.2024 om 15:25 schreef olcott:
>>>>>> On 7/12/2024 3:15 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-07-11 14:12:15 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 7/11/2024 1:28 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-07-10 18:58:14 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2024 1:55 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Fred. Zwarts <F.Zwarts@hetnet.nl> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 10.jul.2024 om 20:12 schreef Alan Mackenzie:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ]
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In comp.theory Fred. Zwarts <F.Zwarts@hetnet.nl> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ .... ]
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Proving that the simulation is incorrect. Because a 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would not abort a halting program halfway its simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just for clarity, a correct simulation wouldn't abort a 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>> program either, would it?  Or have I misunderstood this 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctness?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ .... ]
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> A non-halting program cannot be simulated correctly in a 
>>>>>>>>>>>> finite time.
>>>>>>>>>>>> So, it depends whether we can call it a correct simulation, 
>>>>>>>>>>>> when it does
>>>>>>>>>>>> not abort. But, for some meaning of 'correct', indeed, a 
>>>>>>>>>>>> simulator
>>>>>>>>>>>> should not abort a non-halting program either.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> OK, thanks!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In other words he is saying that when you do
>>>>>>>>>> 1 step correctly you did 0 steps correctly.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That is possible as "correctly" has different meaning when talking
>>>>>>>>> about steps from when talking about simulations.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *No that is always false*
>>>>>>>> When you did one anythings correctly then you did
>>>>>>>> more than zero anythings correctly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If I only correcly do one thing that is not a part of my routine 
>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>> I don't do my routine correctly. If I do correctly every part of 
>>>>>>> my routine
>>>>>>> but do them in a wrong order I don't do my routine correctly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fred was trying to get away with saying that when 1
>>>>>> step of DDD is correctly emulated by HHH that 0 steps
>>>>>> were emulated correctly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Olcott has a problem with the English language.
>>>>> I said that when a program needs 2 cycles of simulation, it is 
>>>>> incorrect to abort after 1 cycle and decide it is non-halting.
>>>>> His problem seems to be that he thinks that skipping x86 
>>>>> instructions in the simulation does not change the behaviour of a 
>>>>> program.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are more situations where he seems to have a problem with the 
>>>>> English language. He thinks that everything greater than 2 equals 
>>>>> infinity. When a program has more than two recursions, he thinks it 
>>>>> is non-halting.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is very difficult to discuss with someone with such a poor 
>>>>> understanding of the English language, because he continuously 
>>>>> twists the meaning of words, both his own words as well as the 
>>>>> words of his opponents.
>>>>
>>>> I think he is less harmful that way. His lack of clarity and obvious 
>>>> twisting
>>>> of the meaning of words reduce the risk that anyone would believe 
>>>> what he
>>>> tries to say.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *This proves that every rebuttal is wrong somewhere*
>>> No DDD instance of each HHH/DDD pair of the infinite set of
>>> every HHH/DDD pair ever reaches past its own machine address of
>>> 0000216b and halts thus proving that every HHH is correct to
>>> reject its input DDD as non-halting.
>>>
>>> People disagree with this on the basis they they believe
>>> that they can disagree with the x86 language. That is the
>>> same as disagreeing with arithmetic, not allowed.
>>
>> See, not very convincing, is it?
>>
> 
> Likewise for people that do not know how to count to
> five can disagree that 2 + 3 = 5.
> 
> When the source of your disagreement is your own ignorance
> then your disagreement has no actual basis.
> 
> *You can comprehend this is a truism or fail to*
> *comprehend it disagreement is necessarily incorrect*
> Any input that must be aborted to prevent the non
> termination of HHH necessarily specifies non-halting
> behavior or it would never need to be aborted.
> 
> Disagreeing with the above is analogous to disagreeing
> with arithmetic.
> 

Right, but since the DDD that calls the HHH(DDD) that aborts its 
simulation and returns CAN be simulated to a final state by another 
simulator, HHH did not need to abort its simulation, but did.

Of course, none of that matters since you have also admitted that you 
input doesn't actually represent a full program, so your problem setup 
is invalid.

You have admitted to be working in a subjective environment instead of 
the objective enviroment of the problem, so nothing you have said 
actually has truth in it for the Halting Problem.

Admitting you have been lying for years was not a very good mode for you 
arguement.

A representation of a non-program isn't the same as the representation 
of a program, so your claims of any form of close equivalency to the 
problem you claim to be working on has be refuted.