Path: ...!feed.opticnetworks.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 15:04:52 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 44
Message-ID: <87jzidm83f.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <v45tec$4q15$1@dont-email.me> <v4sa0h$1dk9i$3@dont-email.me>
	<v4sci6$1ebce$1@dont-email.me> <v4sd35$1eb2f$5@dont-email.me>
	<v4u3jl$1se49$1@dont-email.me> <v4umvh$1vpm0$7@dont-email.me>
	<v50d8k$2e51s$1@dont-email.me> <v50dtp$2e5ij$1@dont-email.me>
	<v51f4t$2k8ar$1@dont-email.me> <v51ge4$2kbbe$2@dont-email.me>
	<v539bk$329sv$1@dont-email.me> <v53upb$35vak$6@dont-email.me>
	<v575pl$3sg5p$1@dont-email.me> <v5767s$3soh6$1@dont-email.me>
	<v5e28t$11urb$5@i2pn2.org> <v5eg03$1ikpr$2@dont-email.me>
	<v5eho7$24l4$1@news.muc.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 16:04:53 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b2e0149f9e88712508ba5999d7ddf609";
	logging-data="1655192"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18DTkZz9LRG2yzgjxaZommGYhs0Z6Cl5xs="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:p9vrYrA/QBRq7z40CUo7w9j+Bg8=
	sha1:BRRKjX6pp4wsYlGX5rLbvXhp+UI=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.68fdfcaefe83f156f7d6.20240625150452BST.87jzidm83f.fsf@bsb.me.uk
Bytes: 3239

Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes:

> [ Followup-To: set ]
>
> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 6/25/2024 4:22 AM, joes wrote:
>>> Am Sat, 22 Jun 2024 13:47:24 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>> On 6/22/2024 1:39 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>> Op 21.jun.2024 om 15:21 schreef olcott:
>
>>>> When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct emulation is the
>>>> semantics of the x86 programming language then we see that when DDD is
>>>> correctly emulated by H0 that its call to H0(DDD) cannot possibly
>>>> return.
>>> Yes. Which is wrong, because H0 should terminate.
>
> [ .... ]
>
>> The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated
>> by H0 cannot possibly return.
>
>> Until you acknowledge this is true, this is the
>> only thing that I am willing to talk to you about.
>
> I think you are talking at cross purposes.  Joes's point is that H0
> should terminate because it's a decider.  You're saying that when H0 is
> "correctly" emulating, it won't terminate.  I don't recall seeing anybody
> arguing against that.
>
> So you're saying, in effect, H0 is not a decider.  I don't think anybody
> else would argue against that, either.

He's been making exactly the same nonsense argument for years.  It
became crystal clear a little over three years ago when he made the
mistake of posting the pseudo-code for H -- a step by step simulator
that stopped simulating (famously on line 15) when some pattern was
detected.  He declared false (not halting) to be the correct result for
the halting computation H(H_Hat(), H_Hat()) because of what H(H_Hat(),
H_Hat()) would do "if line 15 were commented out"!

PO does occasionally make it clear what the shell game is.

-- 
Ben.