Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!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: Thu, 13 Feb 2025 07:17:47 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <64b967cd547651820c1d20d22c9692e6b5e5f329@i2pn2.org>
References: <vnumf8$24cq0$1@dont-email.me>
 <f7f9c03f97de054f6393139c74f595f68400ede5@i2pn2.org>
 <vo6b14$3o0uo$1@dont-email.me>
 <274abb70abec9d461ac3eb34c0980b7421f5fabd@i2pn2.org>
 <vo6rhd$3tsq7$1@dont-email.me> <vo79pq$8vq$2@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>
 <e3693316b91f4bd357aa26a12ebd469086c11c65@i2pn2.org>
 <vocpt8$16c4e$5@dont-email.me>
 <7ad847dee2cf3bc54cddc66a1e521f8a7242c01f@i2pn2.org>
 <vod3ft$18eoa$1@dont-email.me>
 <50488790b3d697cccde5689919b1d1d001b01965@i2pn2.org>
 <vodrkt$1d1gu$1@dont-email.me>
 <cdaa950d75c0b258288974055228e93f38067535@i2pn2.org>
 <voft9v$1rkco$1@dont-email.me>
 <e351c3a68fe9fffc21c6b82a50743305af794dd0@i2pn2.org>
 <vojrqp$2oikq$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2025 12:17:47 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="4036608"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vojrqp$2oikq$3@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 7729
Lines: 109

On 2/12/25 11:18 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/11/2025 2:05 PM, joes wrote:
>> Am Tue, 11 Feb 2025 10:19:11 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 2/11/2025 9:23 AM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Mon, 10 Feb 2025 15:38:37 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> On 2/10/2025 2:48 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>> Am Mon, 10 Feb 2025 08:46:21 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>> On 2/10/2025 6:52 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>> Am Mon, 10 Feb 2025 06:02:48 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/10/2025 5:16 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Am Sun, 09 Feb 2025 13:54:39 -0600 schrieb 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:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/7/2025 6:20 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/6/25 10:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/6/2025 8:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/6/25 5:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/6/2025 1:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/6/25 1:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/6/2025 10:52 AM, Bonita Montero
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 05.02.2025 um 16:11 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/5/2025 1:44 AM, Bonita Montero
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 05.02.2025 um 04:38 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which proves that HHH fails to make a correct decision
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about DD's halting behaviour. All other methods (direct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation by a world class simulator, etc.) show that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DD halts. But HHH fails to see it. Everyone with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sufficient understanding of programming sees that HHH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not correctly programmed when it aborts one cycle
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before the simulation would end normally.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The execution trace only shows that HHH is unable to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complete its simulation, because HHH is unable to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It turns out that Olcott does not even understand this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simple proof that HHH produces false negatives. HHH is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unable to simulate itself up to the normal termination.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>> HHH is supposed to be a decider, i.e. halt and return the correct
>>>>>>>>>> value.
>>>>>>>>> The directly executed HHH(DD) always halts and returns a correct
>>>>>>>>> value as soon as it correctly determines that its input cannot
>>>>>>>>> possibly terminate normally.
>>>>>>>> We were talking about HHH(HHH). If the outer HHH halts according to
>>>>>>>> spec, so does the inner, because it is the same. Therefore it can’t
>>>>>>>> report „non-halting” and be correct. If the inner HHH doesn’t halt,
>>>>>>>> it is not a decider.
>>>>>> RSVP
>>>> Hello?
>>> I am not going to ever talk about that.
>> Oh goody, you’re never getting anywhere if you reject corrections.
>>
> 
> I reject infinite deflection away from the point.
> The absolute single-mined focus point is that
> DD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possible
> terminate normally.


No, you deflect any statement that shows you are wrong, because your 
tiny mind can't handle it.

Your problem is that you base your logic on contradictions and lies.

Here the problem is that since your HHH doesn't correctly simulate its 
input, it doesn't matter what the not being used variant of the program 
would do, as we aren't using it.

That you confuse the to, just proves you don't know the basic 
terminology of the system, and are too stupid to see your stupidity.

> 
> Since there is a 5% chance that the treatment I will
> have next month will kill me and this treatment is
> my only good chance I will totally ignore anything
> that diverges from the point.
> 

No, you ignore and truth that shows that you are wrong, because you 
don't actually believe in the truth.