Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Hypothetical possibilities --- Complete Proof *FAILED*
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2024 10:41:47 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <9abfb1c2d15c268812cc0f81700920c5b9d157e5@i2pn2.org>
References: <v7gl30$3j9fi$1@dont-email.me> <v7vlbj$2ofet$1@dont-email.me>
 <v80a2u$2rabc$4@dont-email.me> <v825jo$39i9l$1@dont-email.me>
 <v82u9d$3dftr$3@dont-email.me> <v8306v$3c7$1@news.muc.de>
 <v83161$3dftr$11@dont-email.me> <v84udt$3rp4t$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8bc6j$159av$1@dont-email.me>
 <ea673a5b4ed43fbddf938c69bd013b0cf2ca325d@i2pn2.org>
 <v8c6kb$1de3l$1@dont-email.me>
 <9f3112e056ad6eebf35f940c34b802b46addcad4@i2pn2.org>
 <v8cde0$1ecgo$1@dont-email.me> <v8ctgt$1gbu7$4@dont-email.me>
 <v8dkc3$1kii7$3@dont-email.me> <v8e55v$1nrnh$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8e9vu$1oqd7$1@dont-email.me> <v8fftq$22ege$3@dont-email.me>
 <v8fuj5$24rl1$10@dont-email.me> <v8g1j7$24u77$6@dont-email.me>
 <v8g2jl$26d7d$1@dont-email.me> <v8g5oq$26s53$5@dont-email.me>
 <v8g658$276fl$1@dont-email.me>
 <9d2f2d8a1bf9614b9d8ab56bd500a78075b365e4@i2pn2.org>
 <v8gdan$288f9$2@dont-email.me> <v8gnoo$2bb0i$2@dont-email.me>
 <v8gt6v$2coqq$4@dont-email.me> <v8i4g9$2ncq1$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8ifmb$2pju7$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2024 14:41:47 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1215790"; 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: <v8ifmb$2pju7$4@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5157
Lines: 81

On 8/2/24 7:24 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/2/2024 3:13 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 01.aug.2024 om 23:03 schreef olcott:
>>> On 8/1/2024 2:30 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 01.aug.2024 om 18:32 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 8/1/2024 11:11 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>> Am Thu, 01 Aug 2024 09:30:00 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>> On 8/1/2024 9:23 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>> Op 01.aug.2024 om 15:29 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 8/1/2024 8:12 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Op 01.aug.2024 om 14:20 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/1/2024 3:10 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 31.jul.2024 om 23:23 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/31/2024 3:01 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 31.jul.2024 om 17:14 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/31/2024 3:44 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 31.jul.2024 om 06:09 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The trace stops and hides what happens when 000015d2 is called.
>>>>>>>>>> Olcott is hiding the conditional branch instructions in the
>>>>>>>>>> recursion.
>>>>>>>>> These next lines conclusively prove that DDD is being correctly
>>>>>>>>> emulated by HHH after DDD calls HHH(DDD).
>>>>>>>> It also shows that HHH when simulating itself, does not reach 
>>>>>>>> the end
>>>>>>>> of its own simulation.
>>>>>>> If you weren't a clueless wonder you would understand that DDD 
>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>> emulated by HHH including HHH emulating itself emulated DDD has 
>>>>>>> no end
>>>>>>> of correct emulation.
>>>>>
>>>>>> It does if the simulated HHH aborts, but its simulating copy preempts
>>>>>> that. Indeed, it has no choice, but if it didn't abort, the 
>>>>>> simulation
>>>>>> wouldn't abort either. Therefore it can't simulate itself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>>>>      If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>>>>>      until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
>>>>>      stop running unless aborted then
>>>>>
>>>>>      H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>>>>      specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>>>
>>>> Sipser agreed only to a correct simulation.
>>>
>>> of N steps.
>>
>> Without skipping M steps of a halting program.
>>
> 
> THAT IS WRONG. IT IS MAKING SURE TO SKIP ALL THE STEPS AFTER
> 
> H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
> stop running unless aborted
> 
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I spent two years carefully composing the above before I even
>>>>> asked professor Sipser to review it.
>>>>>
>>>>> DDD is correctly emulated by HHH until HHH sees the same
>>>>> never ending pattern that anyone else can see.
>>>>
>>>> The never ending pattern is there only in your dreams. The HHH that 
>>>> halts after two cycles has a halting pattern. 
>>>
>>> In order for DDD correctly emulated by HHH to halt
>>> DDD correctly emulated  must reach its emulated "ret"
>>> instruction. This <is> impossible.
>>
>> Indeed! HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.
> 
> You are a damned liar about how correct emulation is defined.
> 

No, YOU ARE.