Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about
 this point
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2025 23:33:16 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <77e7c334c298fdd937a6b33b066bb55b0dab88be@i2pn2.org>
References: <1025i6j$afk6$1@dont-email.me> <1025j6l$4nm5$1@dont-email.me>
 <1025jn5$aqju$1@dont-email.me> <1025kkk$4nm5$2@dont-email.me>
 <1025l2e$aqju$3@dont-email.me> <1025l7l$4nm5$3@dont-email.me>
 <1025n51$b964$2@dont-email.me> <1026d6e$g0hl$2@dont-email.me>
 <1026rvc$j3rp$3@dont-email.me> <1028s74$153ga$2@dont-email.me>
 <1029pul$1ah2f$17@dont-email.me>
 <dddfe142050372c7958cc73aeb0c56547627b7b7@i2pn2.org>
 <102a39e$1fcc5$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2025 03:38:25 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="4192395"; 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: <102a39e$1fcc5$3@dont-email.me>

On 6/10/25 4:07 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/10/2025 2:32 PM, joes wrote:
>> Am Tue, 10 Jun 2025 12:27:48 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 6/10/2025 4:00 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 09.jun.2025 om 16:43 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 6/9/2025 5:31 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 09.jun.2025 om 06:15 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>> On 6/8/2025 10:42 PM, dbush wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> And because your HHH does not work with the description/
>>>>>>>> specification of an algorithm, by your own admission, you're not
>>>>>>>> working on the halting problem.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> HHH(DDD) takes a finite string of x86 instructions that specify that
>>>>>>> HHH simulates itself simulating DDD.
>>
>> DDD does not specify that HHH should simulate itself. It could be
>> simulated by HHH1, which would (as you point out) not simulate itself.
>>
>>>>>> And HHH fails to see the specification of the x86 instructions. It
>>>>>> aborts before it can see how the program ends.
>>>>>>
>>>>> It is a verified fact that unless the outer HHH aborts its simulation
>>>>> of DDD that DDD simulated by HHH the directly executed DDD() and the
>>>>> directly executed HHH() would never stop running.
>>>>
>>>> But the abort is coded in the input.
>>>
>>> I corrected you on this too many times. Stopping running is not halting.
>>> Only reaching a final halt state is halting.
>>> That I had to tell you this several times seems to prove that you are
>>> dishonest.
>>
>> No, the *input* DDD calls HHH, which contains an abort, but the outer
>> HHH doesn't simulate it up to that point.
>>
> 
> Infinite_Loop()
> {
>    HERE: goto HERE;
>    return;
> }
> 
> Likewise Infinite_Loop() is never simulated to
> completion BECAUSE THERE IS NO COMPLETION.
> 

Sure there is, it is just unbounded.

It is just like the Natural Numbers are a complete set.

You don't understand what "complete" means here, because you mind is 
just too small, and you don't understand the mathematics of infinite sets.