Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Sufficient knowledge of C proves that DD specifies
 non-terminating behavior to HHH
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2025 12:53:46 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <8be76c6ce027ec61028d5081e95717b145b70f24@i2pn2.org>
References: <vnumf8$24cq0$1@dont-email.me> <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>
	<vocd0e$14a92$1@dont-email.me> <vocp7p$16c4e$2@dont-email.me>
	<vocqjl$16qj7$1@dont-email.me> <vocrbl$16uuv$1@dont-email.me>
	<vodh9d$1ar1l$1@dont-email.me> <vodo13$1ccae$1@dont-email.me>
	<f4a1a9c106d4490f0ede6900ed3327ea4110624a@i2pn2.org>
	<vofne1$1qh2r$1@dont-email.me> <vofsqb$1q3mf$2@dont-email.me>
	<voftfg$1rkco$2@dont-email.me> <vofupe$1q3mf$3@dont-email.me>
	<vojrgb$2oikq$2@dont-email.me> <vokiuo$2s1tr$1@dont-email.me>
	<vom1jj$34osr$2@dont-email.me>
	<bf2ebcb7fa687306a75c0a85d0fd2dc959898d92@i2pn2.org>
	<vomgag$3anm4$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2025 12:53:46 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1906"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 7093
Lines: 105

Am Thu, 13 Feb 2025 22:20:32 -0600 schrieb olcott:
> On 2/13/2025 9:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/13/25 7:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/13/2025 4:53 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 13.feb.2025 om 05:12 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 2/11/2025 10:44 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 11.feb.2025 om 17:22 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>> On 2/11/2025 10:10 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>> Op 11.feb.2025 om 15:38 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2025 1:28 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Am Mon, 10 Feb 2025 14:36:51 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/10/2025 12:41 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 10.feb.2025 om 13:27 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/10/2025 6:14 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 10.feb.2025 om 12:51 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/10/2025 2:22 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 09.feb.2025 om 20:54 schreef 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:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is true as a verified fact and has been pointed out to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott many times, but he refuses to learn. So, again:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is a verified fact that main halts,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is a verified fact that the input to HHH(main) cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly terminate normally.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, the verified fact is that the input can terminatie
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> normally
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The directly executed main IS NOT THE INPUT TO HHH.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This main is a program that includes all functions called
>>>>>>>>>>>> directly and indirectly, including HHH.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The input to HHH(main) when correctly simulated by HHH cannot
>>>>>>>>>>> possibly terminate normally.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The input to HHH, which is main(), terminates. HHH does not
>>>>>>>>>> simulate that.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The directly executed main() is not the same instance of main()
>>>>>>>>> that is input to HHH and simulated by HHH.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The directly executed main() relies on HHH aborting the
>>>>>>>>> simulation of its input. HHH cannot rely on anything else
>>>>>>>>> aborting the simulation of its input.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The simulating HHH should rely on the simulated HHH to abort.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That cannot possibly work. The executed HHH always sees at least
>>>>>>> one more full execution trace than any inner HHH ever sees.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Indeed, that is what I said, but Olcott deleted it in the citation.
>>>>>> HHH cannot do what it should do. So, he proves the halting theorem.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the sentence it false it does not become true in some greater
>>>>> context.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed and since it is false that the simulated HHH would not abort,
>>>
>>> This is simply beyond your skill level.
>>> Since each HHH is exactly the same unless the first one aborts none of
>>> them do.
>>>
>> But the first one DOES abort, as that is how it was defined to be.
>> 
>> And thus, the one that DD calls aborts.
>> 
> A program that is no longer being simulated DOES NOTHING

Hey, let me prove all programs are no-ops, by NOT SIMULATING THEM MWAHAHA

-- 
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.