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: Hypothetical possibilities
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2024 21:51:59 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <6d3efd3e375c13ce1b313693d756734481804e52@i2pn2.org>
References: <v7gl30$3j9fi$1@dont-email.me> <v7h1fl$3lcvq$3@dont-email.me>
 <v7h224$3li66$3@dont-email.me>
 <e975eef57ba6d3d4cc790818c05b7165443f7ce4@i2pn2.org>
 <v7h5b2$3m6kq$2@dont-email.me>
 <73e4850d3b48903cf85b2967ba713aced98caf96@i2pn2.org>
 <v7h9on$3muu0$1@dont-email.me>
 <09536cf44fc4c3d14b37641cf8fdc9e8a8c24580@i2pn2.org>
 <v7hept$3o0be$1@dont-email.me>
 <97884acd35091ddd67bda892c7a3dd28e188f760@i2pn2.org>
 <v7hftt$3o7r5$1@dont-email.me>
 <f74209ef7d87b6f7891e4a2b89cc18bfe7233810@i2pn2.org>
 <v7hkb2$3otgn$1@dont-email.me>
 <1c5729ae6d0a7bca84d24eec9f85bf30de70e3d9@i2pn2.org>
 <v7hokk$3phhn$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2024 01:51:59 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3938152"; 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: <v7hokk$3phhn$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 6287
Lines: 117

On 7/20/24 9:35 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/20/2024 8:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/20/24 8:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/20/2024 7:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 7/20/24 7:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/20/2024 6:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/20/24 6:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/20/2024 5:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/20/24 5:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/20/2024 4:06 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 15:05:53 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/20/2024 2:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/20/24 3:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/20/2024 2:00 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 20.jul.2024 om 17:28 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Termination Analyzers / Partial Halt Deciders must 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt this is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a design requirement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Every simulating termination analyzer HHH either 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aborts the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of its input or not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (c) Within the hypothetical case where HHH does not abort 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of its input {HHH, emulated DDD and executed DDD}
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never stop running.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This violates the design requirement of (a) therefore HHH 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must abort
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the simulation of its input.
>>>>>>>>>> You missed a couple details:
>>>>>>>>>> A terminating input shouldn't be aborted, or at least not 
>>>>>>>>>> classified
>>>>>>>>>> as not terminating. Terminating inputs needn't be aborted; 
>>>>>>>>>> they and the
>>>>>>>>>> simulator halt on their own.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And when it aborts, the simulation is incorrect. When HHH 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aborts and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halts, it is not needed to abort its simulation, because 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it will halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of its own.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you are trying to get away with saying that no HHH ever 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> needs to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> abort the simulation of its input and HHH will stop running?
>>>>>>>>>> Pretty much.
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the fact that HHH DOES abort its simulation that makes 
>>>>>>>>>>>> it not
>>>>>>>>>>>> need to.
>>>>>>>>>>> No stupid it is not a fact that every HHH that can possibly 
>>>>>>>>>>> exist aborts
>>>>>>>>>>> its simulation.
>>>>>>>>>> I thought they all halt after a finite number of steps?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>     HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>>     return;
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> DDD correctly simulated by pure function HHH cannot
>>>>>>>>> possibly reach its own return instruction.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wrong.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You know that you are lying about this as you admit below:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, YOU just don't what the words mean, and reckless disregard 
>>>>>> the teaching you have been getting, which makes your errors not 
>>>>>> just honest mistakes but reckless pathological lies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It may be that the simulation by HHH never reaches that point, 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> but if HHH aborts its simuliaton and returns (as required for it 
>>>>>>>> to be a decider) then the behavior of DDD 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Simulated by HHH is to Die, stop running, no longer function.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, HHH is NOT the "Machine" that determines what the code does, 
>>>>>> so can not "Kill" it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So you are trying to get away with the lie
>>>>> that an aborted simulation keeps on running.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, but the BEHAVIOR of the program does, and that is what matters.
>>>
>>> So you agree that DDD correctly simulated by any pure function
>>> HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> No, I will let you claim (without proof, so we can argue tha later) 
>> that the simulation by HHH of DDD does not reach the return, but the 
>> behavior of the DDD simuliated by HHH continues, to the return if HHH 
>> aborts its simulation and returns, as the behavior of ALL copies of 
>> DDD do not "stop" just because some simulator gave up looking at it.
>>
> 
> In other words you never understood that the input to an x86
> emulator is a static finite string of bytes that does not do
> anything at all on its own?
> 

But it represents a program that does, and the question is about that 
program.

It seems "representing" is a abstraction that is a bridge too far for 
you mental ability, and that might be the same problem with "Truth", 
since there is a abstract nature to what Truth is, as Truth can exist 
without having anything to actually sense to make it occur.

That your mind can't handle abstractions would explain a lot of your 
problems.