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: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- never
 reaches its halt state
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2024 22:39:54 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <aec8188c524688e493ab487ca567997483a8855d@i2pn2.org>
References: <v8jh7m$30k55$1@dont-email.me> <v8kou4$3b2ta$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8lcir$3f6vr$4@dont-email.me> <v8ldcs$3fcgg$2@dont-email.me>
 <v8lem0$3ftpo$2@dont-email.me>
 <735401a612caec3eedb531311fd1e09b3d94521d@i2pn2.org>
 <v8lkdb$3h16a$1@dont-email.me>
 <5ee8b34a57f12b0630509183ffbd7c07804634b3@i2pn2.org>
 <v8ll4v$3h8m2$1@dont-email.me>
 <cbde765b8f9e769930b6c8589556907a41d9c256@i2pn2.org>
 <v8lm80$3h8m2$3@dont-email.me> <v8n6mq$3tv07$3@dont-email.me>
 <v8o14v$30uf$1@dont-email.me>
 <950d4eed7965040e841a970d48d5b6f417ff43dc@i2pn2.org>
 <v8oj1n$6kik$3@dont-email.me> <v8pvke$ih0a$1@dont-email.me>
 <4-qdnbdw1JzlRS37nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <v8v7p3$29r2r$1@dont-email.me> <v8vub1$32fso$14@dont-email.me>
 <1e1fa9bc4bbc00aa65c1a7974bd1bda87687c92b@i2pn2.org>
 <v90di8$38oni$1@dont-email.me>
 <47a76378d634bf0db4017f879d0160793b57125e@i2pn2.org>
 <v9161o$3gaju$1@dont-email.me>
 <b84374e766c199e1ba38ef1dc3bc8f6ab2c39dfc@i2pn2.org>
 <v919g6$3l4d5$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2024 02:39:54 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1814287"; 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: <v919g6$3l4d5$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 6575
Lines: 107

On 8/7/24 10:11 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/7/2024 8:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 8/7/24 9:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 8/7/2024 8:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 8/7/24 2:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 8/7/2024 1:02 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>> Am Wed, 07 Aug 2024 08:54:41 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>> On 8/7/2024 2:29 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-08-05 13:49:44 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I know what it means. But the inflected form "emulated" does not 
>>>>>>>> mean
>>>>>>>> what you apparently think it means. You seem to think that "DDD
>>>>>>>> emulated by HHH" means whatever HHH thinks DDD means but it does 
>>>>>>>> not.
>>>>>>>> DDD means what it means whether HHH emulates it or not.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In other words when DDD is defined to have a pathological 
>>>>>>> relationship
>>>>>>> to HHH we can just close our eyes and ignore it and pretend that it
>>>>>>> doesn't exist?
>>>>>> It doesn't change anything about DDD. HHH was supposed to decide 
>>>>>> anything
>>>>>> and can't fulfill that promise. That doesn't mean that DDD is somehow
>>>>>> faulty, it's just a counterexample.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>> {
>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>    return;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> *HHH is required to report on the behavior of DDD*
>>>>> Anyone that does not understand that HHH meets this criteria
>>>>> has insufficient understanding.
>>>>
>>>> But it doesn't, as a correct simulation of a DDD that calls an HHH 
>>>> that returns will stop running, 
>>>
>>> I really think that you must be a liar here because
>>> you have known this for years:
>>>
>>> On 8/2/2024 11:32 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>  > ...In some formulations, there are specific states
>>>  >    defined as "halting states" and the machine only
>>>  >    halts if either the start state is a halt state...
>>>
>>>  > ...these and many other definitions all have
>>>  >    equivalent computing prowess...
>>>
>>> Anyone that knows C knows that DDD correctly simulated
>>> by any HHH cannot possibly reach its "return" {halt state}.
>>>
>>
>> But the problem is that you HHH ODESN'T correctly emulate the DDD it 
>> is given, because it aborts its emulation.
>>
> 
> Each HHH of every HHH that can possibly exist definitely
> emulates zero to infinity instructions correctly. In
> none of these cases does the emulated DDD ever reach
> its "return" instruction halt state.
> 
> *There are no double-talk weasel words around this*
> *There are no double-talk weasel words around this*
> *There are no double-talk weasel words around this*
> 
> Ah you are finally beaten so that everyone can tell !!!
> 

So, you just keep repeating your disproven LIES.

Every HHH that simulates for a finite number of steps, and then aborts 
and returns (which is the class that you claim to be correct) only 
PARTIALLY simulate the input, and thus only get PARTIAL details of the 
behavior of the PROGRAM, a thing you don't seemt o understand about, 
which makes your logic so broken.

Since it is the behavior of the PROGRAM that is what the decider needs 
to answer about, since the question is about if the PROGRAM given as the 
input will halt, and the behavior of the progrma is defined by the 
semantics of the x86 language which says that the PROGRAM doesn't stop 
unless it reaches a terminal instruction, means that HHH stopping its 
emulation (which just makes its emulation incorrect) doesn't stop the 
behavior of the program, that will continue until the HHH that it 
called, which behaves IDENTICALLY to the HHH that was emulating it, also 
stops its emulation and returns to DDD which then reaches its terminal 
instruction and halts.

Thus, the CORRECT answer about the halting of the program represented by 
the input to HHH, if HHH answers, is that it halts, even though the 
correct emulation of a finite number of steps didn't get to there. But 
it is a simple fact that the correct emulation of a finite number of 
steps doesn't correctly show the behavior of a larger finite number of 
steps, and thus isn't a totally correct emulation.

You logic is just based on double-talk and weasel words where you need 
ot use words with shades of meaning and use them in multiple 
contradictory meanings in one statement.

This just shows how poor your actual position is, as you can't actually 
point to one actual respected source for any part of your logic, at best 
you get people with minor names whi make similar errors.

Sorry, you are just proving your ignorance and stupidity.

Just repeating the same sentences just proves it.