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: V5 --- Professor Sipser --- trace of HHH on DDD input
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2024 16:48:58 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <d7a093b6f9700197e4f28e2cc3f930d7e19cc08d@i2pn2.org>
References: <va104l$376ed$4@dont-email.me>
 <729cc551062c13875686d266a5453a488058e81c@i2pn2.org>
 <va3kac$3nd5c$1@dont-email.me>
 <148bf4dd91f32379a6d81a621fb7ec3fc1e00db0@i2pn2.org>
 <va3lai$3nd5c$2@dont-email.me> <va46sd$3pr24$1@dont-email.me>
 <va4mle$3s0hu$1@dont-email.me>
 <5591ff08ed8f7b4bdf33813681e156b775efe0ec@i2pn2.org>
 <va63uu$2fo9$1@dont-email.me>
 <b0a86b6a1343ebb5f9112ae757768a7cbbc770b2@i2pn2.org>
 <va65r8$6ht7$1@dont-email.me>
 <26fadbf7b8cb5f93dbe18bffeff6e959251f9892@i2pn2.org>
 <va6b4n$7boc$1@dont-email.me>
 <b19eb2a29dacfa67f2f9ced0d03234e980f4c985@i2pn2.org>
 <va6edj$8f0p$1@dont-email.me>
 <e20689d26c224e4923146d425843348539ce6065@i2pn2.org>
 <va7tb3$h3la$1@dont-email.me>
 <2c6dfb2e8cdafc17fd833599dfba3843f56a281a@i2pn2.org>
 <vaavkc$128hl$1@dont-email.me> <vac6ns$1atfd$1@dont-email.me>
 <vacmpa$1d5dd$1@dont-email.me>
 <57c86522e95be7746b2d2864b20d6cd129552990@i2pn2.org>
 <vacr3e$1e36g$1@dont-email.me> <vaddgl$1ghhg$2@dont-email.me>
 <vadec2$1h1jn$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2024 20:48:58 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3733217"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vadec2$1h1jn$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5145
Lines: 80

On 8/24/24 4:04 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/24/2024 2:49 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 24.aug.2024 om 16:35 schreef olcott:
>>> On 8/24/2024 9:27 AM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Sat, 24 Aug 2024 08:21:45 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> On 8/24/2024 3:47 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 23.aug.2024 om 23:40 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>> On 8/23/2024 2:24 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>> Am Thu, 22 Aug 2024 12:42:59 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Only IF it will in fact keep repeating, which is not the case.
>>>>>>> Only IF it *WOULD* in fact keep repeating, *which is the case*
>>>>>> It is the case only if you still cheat with the Root variable, which
>>>>>> makes that HHH processes a non-input, when it is requested to predict
>>>>>> the behaviour of the input.
>>>>> The fact is that it *WOULD* in fact keep repeating,
>>>>> thus *IT DOES* get the correct answer.
>>>
>>>> The simulated, aborting HHH would… abort.
>>>
>>> <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
>>>
>> Why repeating this over and over again if you do not understand the 
>> words?
>> Sipser agreed to 'If ... correctly simulates ... 
> 
> Meaning: Emulates the input finite string according
> to the semantics of the x86 language.
> 

But it the finite string doesn't contain ALL of the code needed to eb 
emulatied, which means ALL the code use by DDD, which includes the code 
of HHH it can't actually be done.

So, since you START with an error in your definition, since you try to 
define "DDD" as JUST the code of the "C function" DDD, and not the 
PROGRAM DDD, you begin with the LIE of a CATEGORY ERROR.

> I have corrected you too many times on this to believe
> that you are honest.

No, you have repeated your ERROR too many times to believe that it is 
just an honest error. You have proved yourself to be a pathological liar.

> 
>> correctly determines ...'.
> 
> If DDD WOULD never stop running when emulated by
> a hypothetical HHH that never aborts then this 

But the PROGRAM DDD, which calls the original HHH as the description of 
the proper program does, DOES reach a final state,

> 
> would never stop running unless aborted
> would never stop running unless aborted
> would never stop running unless aborted

But it does. Only in your LIES does it not.

Sorry, your repeating the errors and not addressing them just proves 
that you are a stupid ignorant pathological liar.

Thus, even if you do try to properly derive your new "correct reasoning" 
logic system, many people will just not even look at it, because why 
should they trust anything from a person with that repuration.

Sorry, you are must killing you ability to be believed about anything.

> 
>> There is no correct simulation, there is no correct determination, so 
>> the remainder of the sentence does not apply.
>> Maybe you should read it a few more times, until you understand what 
>> 'if' means.
>> Maybe use a dictionary to learn the meaning of English words.
> 
>