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: Overview of proof that the input to HHH(DDD) specifies
 non-halting behavior --- Mike --- point by point
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2024 22:33:46 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <bf862d6763676515b35b18e725c202e354ba098c@i2pn2.org>
References: <v9edol$3metk$1@dont-email.me> <v9fe61$3rqao$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9flkh$3se8c$3@dont-email.me> <v9fr90$3u3of$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9ftsp$3uffi$1@dont-email.me> <v9g0im$3u3of$5@dont-email.me>
 <v9g22t$3uffi$3@dont-email.me> <v9g6rb$cql$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9g7d3$gmc$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2024 02:33:46 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2494910"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v9g7d3$gmc$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4425
Lines: 81

On 8/13/24 2:07 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/13/2024 12:58 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 13.aug.2024 om 18:36 schreef olcott:
>>> On 8/13/2024 11:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 13.aug.2024 om 17:25 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 8/13/2024 9:40 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 13.aug.2024 om 15:04 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>> On 8/13/2024 5:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-08-13 01:43:49 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We prove that the simulation is correct.
>>>>>>>>> Then we prove that this simulation cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>> reach its final halt state / ever stop running without being 
>>>>>>>>> aborted.
>>>>>>>>> The semantics of the x86 language conclusive proves this is true.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thus when we measure the behavior specified by this finite
>>>>>>>>> string by DDD correctly simulated/emulated by HHH it specifies
>>>>>>>>> non-halting behavior.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/ 
>>>>>>>>> publication/369971402_Simulating_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Input to HHH(DDD) is DDD. If there is any other input then the 
>>>>>>>> proof is
>>>>>>>> not interesting.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The behviour specified by DDD on the first page of the linked 
>>>>>>>> article
>>>>>>>> is halting if HHH(DDD) halts. Otherwise HHH is not interesting.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Any proof of the false statement that "the input to HHH(DDD) 
>>>>>>>> specifies
>>>>>>>> non-halting behaviour" is either uninteresting or unsound.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is true that DDD correctly emulated by any HHH cannot
>>>>>>> possibly reach its own "return" instruction final halt state.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Contradiction in terminus.
>>>>>> A correct simulation is not possible. 
>>>>>
>>>>> *YOU JUST DON'T GET THIS*
>>>>> A simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH according to
>>>>> the semantics of the x86 language is stipulated to be correct.
>>>>
>>>> You don't get that you cannot stipulate that something is correct. 
>>>
>>> It is objectively incorrect to disagree with the semantics
>>> of the x86 language when one is assessing whether or not
>>> an emulation of N instructions of an input is correct or
>>> incorrect.
>>>
>>> If you can't agree to that anything else that you say is moot.
>>>
>>
>> It is objectively incorrect to say that a simulation is correct when 
>> it only simulated the first N instructions correctly.
> 
> It is objectively correct to say that the first N instructions
> were emulated correctly when the first N instructions were
> emulated correctly.
> 
> Changing my words then providing a rebuttal for these changed
> words is a form of intentional deceit known as strawman.
> 
> 

But the first N instructions are not ALL the instructions and thus do 
not provide a completely correct view of what the program does, and not 
being completely correct is just INCORRECT.

One lie spoils a proof, many lies prove one to be a LIAR.

We have lost count of the number of lies you have stated, since it has 
gotten so big.