Path: ...!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: key error in all the proofs --- Correction of Fred
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 14:49:05 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <9ddc13b59efe79954838b7f59313cde87d8f2c4f@i2pn2.org>
References: <v8jh7m$30k55$1@dont-email.me>
 <TyKdnc3hCNvmUyf7nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <v9ekta$3necg$1@dont-email.me>
 <2f8c1b0943d03743fe9894937092bc2832e0a029@i2pn2.org>
 <v9fn50$3ta4u$2@dont-email.me> <v9hmfc$c71c$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9ic89$f16v$6@dont-email.me>
 <06ea0f3a1ff938643b3dfefdf62af15559593733@i2pn2.org>
 <v9iqgc$go4j$2@dont-email.me>
 <LcucnRYb5ZiYhyD7nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <v9j6ci$jo32$1@dont-email.me> <v9kdp9$srkm$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9ku3k$v95g$1@dont-email.me> <v9nbqr$1dmui$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9nf3o$1dvef$3@dont-email.me> <v9nkhd$1ertd$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9nmj5$1f34m$1@dont-email.me>
 <6590517a070695b81751db1b64c3d26019ee9b13@i2pn2.org>
 <v9nog5$1fe76$1@dont-email.me>
 <34a22fd138e2e1e41a4dd29cd6c9016064e2343c@i2pn2.org>
 <v9npus$1flup$2@dont-email.me>
 <e9c7ddb8dc4b4b03399d064d634f11297501e49d@i2pn2.org>
 <v9o183$1gkn7$2@dont-email.me>
 <2c13788e85c998e11a449b633b6b8464521c1433@i2pn2.org>
 <v9o4bm$1h46a$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 18:49:05 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2803751"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v9o4bm$1h46a$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4843
Lines: 73

On 8/16/24 2:04 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/16/2024 12:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 8/16/24 1:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 8/16/2024 11:47 AM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Fri, 16 Aug 2024 10:07:08 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> On 8/16/2024 9:59 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>> Am Fri, 16 Aug 2024 09:42:13 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>> On 8/16/2024 9:28 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/16/24 10:09 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/2024 8:34 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-08-16 12:02:00 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Unless an unlimited emulation of DDD by HHH can reach the "return"
>>>>>>>>> instruction of DDD it is construed that this instance of DDD never
>>>>>>>>> halts.
>>>>>>>> But that also construes that HHH is a program that DOES an 
>>>>>>>> unlimited
>>>>>>>> emulation of DDD, and thus isn't a decider
>>>>>>> Not at all. never has.
>>>>>> Yes, because DDD is defined to call its simulator. If you change the
>>>>>> simulator to abort, you also change the simulated HHH. Nobody cares
>>>>>> about HHH aborting a pure simulator.
>>>>
>>>>>>> HHH must predict what the behavior of an unlimited simulation would
>>>>>>> be.
>>>>>> The HHH that aborts must predict what DDD calling an aborting HHH 
>>>>>> does
>>>>> NOT AT ALL, NEVER HAS.
>>>>> PREDICT WHAT THE BEHAVIOR WOULD BE
>>>>> IF IT WAS AN UNLIMITED EMULATION
>>>> Yes, an unlimited simulation of an aborting HHH. 
>>>
>>> Prediction of behavior of unlimited emulation
>>> means prediction of behavior that never aborts.
>>>
>>
>> Right, but the unlimited emulation of the DDD that calls the HHH that 
>> says non-halting will reach a final state.
>>
> 
> I think that you are just twisting my words again.
> 
> _DDD()
> [00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
> [00002173] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
> [0000217f] 83c404     add esp,+04
> [00002182] 5d         pop ebp
> [00002183] c3         ret
> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
> 
> The unlimited emulation of DDD by HHH never stops running.
> 
> 

IF you are going to change an define that *THE* HHH is just a program 
that does unlimited emulation, than it fails to give the answer that the 
input is non-halting.

That's your problem, you only get to have one definition of what HHH is, 
as the definition of DDD includes the HHH that it is calling.

For you to claim that HHH needs to answer about something other than 
what HHH is acually given, which is the DDD that calls the HHH that is 
there, is just a LIE.

So, you have to choose which way you are wrong.

Eitehr HHH does the unlimited emulation, and thus fails to answer, or

HHH does a partial emulation of the DDD that calls the partially 
emulating HHH which makes DDD halting, and thus your HHH gives the wrong 
answer.