Path: ...!news.misty.com!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: point by point --- in our head
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 10:18:44 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <ebb85b096eab1814aa436a75922d16c863302636@i2pn2.org>
References: <v9gv4k$4sc4$1@dont-email.me>
 <561f876601b0329c0260bac26f8b6dfb6e28647f@i2pn2.org>
 <v9h5af$9jn6$1@dont-email.me>
 <aa4bc24ac5642087e81796fffc31e5022bd8823e@i2pn2.org>
 <v9h9ec$a0id$1@dont-email.me>
 <190847da05ab48555c036a799e768f555461eb43@i2pn2.org>
 <v9hbhm$abr9$1@dont-email.me>
 <28bda6bb7d9efdacadf3de76c85a4857d0f83cb3@i2pn2.org>
 <v9ibpq$f16v$4@dont-email.me>
 <be041261e6d47d07a3b29255dc408e6803d870ad@i2pn2.org>
 <v9jnm0$q0lv$1@dont-email.me>
 <54c2cf5516e1477512a9dc4df913c8747164c631@i2pn2.org>
 <v9jom1$q5o5$1@dont-email.me>
 <192e56d5bedc6f7e537857a2cf21af0d9a352edd@i2pn2.org>
 <v9jpms$qaaf$1@dont-email.me>
 <8f9bb44064cab68e97b57ace4988d14928448672@i2pn2.org>
 <v9jrmt$qio5$1@dont-email.me>
 <2ac05356328ae560088cb3887b3b64351fb7ac19@i2pn2.org>
 <v9lbmv$119bh$2@dont-email.me>
 <f5fb8734b03c46c7a70dceb81db2f2f2fc6fc424@i2pn2.org>
 <v9mdmn$19n30$4@dont-email.me>
 <7c735b221306e12d1b72e79b616f35ab5dd367c3@i2pn2.org>
 <v9ni3v$1dvef$7@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 14:18:44 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2782046"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v9ni3v$1dvef$7@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 6011
Lines: 80

On 8/16/24 8:53 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/16/2024 2:19 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Thu, 15 Aug 2024 21:31:51 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 8/15/2024 8:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 8/15/24 12:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 8/15/2024 6:03 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/14/24 11:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/14/2024 10:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/14/24 10:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2024 9:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/24 10:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2024 9:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/24 10:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2024 6:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/24 9:34 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2024 6:22 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/24 12:24 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/13/2024 11:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/13/24 11:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/13/2024 10:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/13/24 10:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/13/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/13/24 8:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, must behave the rules of Computation Theory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That means DDD, to be a program, includes the code of HHH,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and that HHH obeys the requirements of programs in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation theory, which means that it always produces the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same answer to its caller for the same input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note, its "Behavior" is defined as what it would do when run,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even if it never is,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No that is the big mistake of comp theory where it violates
>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own rules.
>>>>>>>>>>>> WHAT rule does it violate? And where do you get it from?
>>>>>>>>>>> You have proven that you don't care.
>>>>>>>>>>> You are like a bot programmed in rebuttal mode.
>>>>>>>>>> I guess you don't have an answer, AGAIN.
>>>>>>>>> Go back and look at the last 500 times that I answer it.
>>>>>>>> You make the claim, but can't show a reliable source for it.
>>>>>>> I make a claim and prove that it is correct and you change the
>>>>>>> subject and form a rebuttal of the changed subject.
>>>>>> No, you make a claim and present a false argument, not a proof.
>>>>> A simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH according to the
>>>>> semantics of the x86 language is necessarily correct.
>>>> It is a simuolation of *ONLY* the first N instructions of DDD,
>>> That is what I said.
>>> It is also true that the correct simulation of N instructions is enough
>>> for something like mathematical induction to correctly predict the
>>> behavior of an unlimited simulation.
>> What a shitshow.
>> A simulation of a limited number of instructions, or one that is aborted,
>> or incomplete, does not show the same behaviour, by virtue of all the
>> following instructions that were not simulated. Nobody was disputing
>> the simulation of the instructions themselves; rather which instructions
>> were or were not simulated.
>>
> 
> void Infinite_Recursion()
> {
>    Infinite_Recursion();
>    OutputString("I never make it here!\n");
> }
> 
> In other words you can't understand the above example.
> 

No, *YOU* do not understn athat the paartial simulation of 
Infinite_recursion, BY ITSELF, doesn' show that Infinite_Recursion is 
non-halting. You need to add the proof, typically a simple and obvious 
recursion, that given you have shown that N steps of this exact input do 
not stop, that we can also show that N+1 steps of this exact input will 
not stop, and thus an infinite number of steps will not stop.

You can't do that with DDD, as changing HHH to go from N to N+1 steps 
changes the PROGRAM DDD, that is the input, and thus the induction is 
invalid.

This is why you keep on trying to slip by, and insist on, your category 
error of DDD being just the bytes of the C function DDD, but that makes 
it not of the right type of thing to ask about Halting, and thus your 
whole argument becomes a LIE.