Path: news.eternal-september.org!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,sci.logic,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem --- CHALLENGE
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2025 16:24:57 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <66c6acdb4e08fb37484f60e54023dee5e057f126@i2pn2.org>
References: <yU0_P.1529838$4AM6.776697@fx17.ams4>
 <101lodi$3pbm3$1@dont-email.me> <101mqoh$2ji$1@dont-email.me>
 <101n4t1$3oc4$1@dont-email.me>
 <e35c1e94a1e55c9622cfedf88d401148e851f2a1.camel@gmail.com>
 <101nk9j$7qau$7@dont-email.me> <101os21$mg8a$1@dont-email.me>
 <101pqge$ta6v$5@dont-email.me> <101uaha$25sfi$1@dont-email.me>
 <101v4bc$2c1iv$2@dont-email.me> <1020sak$2u1is$1@dont-email.me>
 <1021g55$3327l$1@dont-email.me> <10236jr$3lqbg$1@dont-email.me>
 <10237ki$3lo0a$1@dont-email.me> <1028lsi$13r5p$1@dont-email.me>
 <1029nr5$1ah2f$11@dont-email.me> <102bgc0$1soug$1@dont-email.me>
 <102c3bn$20jl4$8@dont-email.me> <102e21p$2ipl5$1@dont-email.me>
 <102er6u$2ohps$4@dont-email.me> <102h3gg$3e0g0$1@dont-email.me>
 <102hgi3$3gqbm$4@dont-email.me> <102hots$3j2bg$1@dont-email.me>
 <102jm8q$5fo1$1@dont-email.me> <102jubu$793t$3@dont-email.me>
 <102m4oq$r3nt$1@dont-email.me> <102mopq$uef9$14@dont-email.me>
 <66e38585b7ecd289576aa996ebf365e4e6f81a64@i2pn2.org>
 <102n8sk$13mp8$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2025 20:25:14 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="651479"; 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: <102n8sk$13mp8$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US

On 6/15/25 4:02 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/15/2025 2:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/15/25 11:27 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/15/2025 4:46 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2025-06-14 13:44:30 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/14/2025 6:26 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-06-13 17:59:23 +0000, André G. Isaak said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2025-06-13 09:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/13/2025 6:53 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nothing is permanent. But you can (and to some extent do) 
>>>>>>>>> maintan a web
>>>>>>>>> page as long as you need it for usenet discussions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I want people to be able to validate my work 50 years after I am 
>>>>>>>> dead.
>>>>>>>> A web-page will not work for this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Usenet is dying. Do you seriously think it will be around in 50 
>>>>>>> years?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some of its contents might still be on some web page.
>>>>>
>>>>> Storing every text message ever written seems
>>>>> to take < 1.0 TB.
>>>>
>>>> Doesn't matter. Unlikely that anyone would even notice that you wanted
>>>> a validation of something.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Anyone with sufficient technical competence carefully
>>> studying what I have said that is not so biased against
>>> my position that they can actually pay complete attention
>>> will understand that I am correct.
>>
>> Nope, only someone as mentally deranged as yourself would believe your 
>> lies.
>>
>>>
>>> If this was not the case then there could be a correct
>>> rebuttal to what I am saying now. Instead of any correct
>>> rebuttal all that has been provided is persistently
>>> false assumptions.
>>
>> There has been, but it has appearently been over you head.
>>
>> You have demonstarted this by making this claim many times, and the 
>> errors you have ignored pointed out.
>>
>>>
>>> A termination analyzer / partial halt decider is
>>> required to report on the behavior of the sequence
>>> of state transitions that its input actually specifies.
>>> It is not allowed to report on anything else.
>>>
>>
>> Right, and that sequence of states spedified by that input, is the 
>> sequence of states actually generated by that program when run, 
> int main()
> {
>    DDD(); // calls HHH(DDD) that is not allowed to report
> }        // on the behavior of its caller.
> 
> Richard pretends to not understand that a function
> that calls another function is not itself the actual
> input to the function that it calls.

And Olcott seems to think that asking about the behavior of a function 
by giving a full specification of it, somehow doesn't ask about all 
invokations of that functions, as if they could differ.

> 
> void DDD()
> {
>    HHH(DDD);
>    return;
> }
> 
> When I challenge anyone to show DDD correctly simulated
> by simulating termination analyzer HHH can possibly reach
> its own simulated termination analyzer they ignore this
> challenge because:

Because you forget the fact that it is just a LIE that your HHH 
correctly simulates its input.

Sorry, asking for someone to prove that the moon is made of green cheese 
just isn't a valid form of arguement.

> 
> (a) They know that they are lying.

YOU know you are lying.

> 
> (b) They don't hardly understand these things at all and
>      don't understand my challenge.

You don't understand that programs are fixed entites, and changing them 
makes them something differe.

> 
> (c) I don't know of any third option.

You don't know ANY optins, as your claim is just false.

> 
> THAT FACT THAT NOT ONE PERSON HAS MET THIS CHALLENGE
> IN SEVERAL YEARS IS VERY STRONG EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT.
> 

All you are doing is proving that you are just a stupid idiot that 
doesn't know what he is talking about.

It seems that lies are just your native tounge, and you can't say 
anthing but them.

You have effetivelly admitted to all of this by failing to actually 
answer any of the rebuttals given to you, and thus you have strpped 
yourself of any ignorance defense, as all the ignorance is either just 
fained, deliberately self-imposed, and a sign of mental incapicity.

Sorry, that is the reputation you are leaving as your legacy,