Path: ...!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: Hypothetical possibilities --- Completly incorrect Proof
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2024 19:33:30 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <edef6948d3ec8cd6bbf16c647873be1679a7b364@i2pn2.org>
References: <v7gl30$3j9fi$1@dont-email.me> <v7nm9m$1433k$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7ofe7$17h8r$6@dont-email.me> <v7qfu0$1m6vf$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7r040$1onhe$3@dont-email.me> <v7vlbj$2ofet$1@dont-email.me>
 <v80a2u$2rabc$4@dont-email.me> <v825jo$39i9l$1@dont-email.me>
 <v82u9d$3dftr$3@dont-email.me> <v8306v$3c7$1@news.muc.de>
 <v83161$3dftr$11@dont-email.me> <v84udt$3rp4t$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8bc6j$159av$1@dont-email.me>
 <ea673a5b4ed43fbddf938c69bd013b0cf2ca325d@i2pn2.org>
 <v8c6kb$1de3l$1@dont-email.me>
 <9f3112e056ad6eebf35f940c34b802b46addcad4@i2pn2.org>
 <v8cde0$1ecgo$1@dont-email.me> <v8ctgt$1gbu7$4@dont-email.me>
 <v8dkc3$1kii7$3@dont-email.me> <v8e55v$1nrnh$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8e9vu$1oqd7$1@dont-email.me> <v8fftq$22ege$3@dont-email.me>
 <v8fuj5$24rl1$10@dont-email.me> <v8g1j7$24u77$6@dont-email.me>
 <v8g2jl$26d7d$1@dont-email.me> <v8g5oq$26s53$5@dont-email.me>
 <v8g658$276fl$1@dont-email.me>
 <9d2f2d8a1bf9614b9d8ab56bd500a78075b365e4@i2pn2.org>
 <v8gdan$288f9$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2024 23:33:30 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1146413"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v8gdan$288f9$2@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4469
Lines: 53

On 8/1/24 12:32 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/1/2024 11:11 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Thu, 01 Aug 2024 09:30:00 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 8/1/2024 9:23 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 01.aug.2024 om 15:29 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 8/1/2024 8:12 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 01.aug.2024 om 14:20 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>> On 8/1/2024 3:10 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>> Op 31.jul.2024 om 23:23 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/31/2024 3:01 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Op 31.jul.2024 om 17:14 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/31/2024 3:44 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 31.jul.2024 om 06:09 schreef olcott:
>>
>>>>>> The trace stops and hides what happens when 000015d2 is called.
>>>>>> Olcott is hiding the conditional branch instructions in the
>>>>>> recursion.
>>>>> These next lines conclusively prove that DDD is being correctly
>>>>> emulated by HHH after DDD calls HHH(DDD).
>>>> It also shows that HHH when simulating itself, does not reach the end
>>>> of its own simulation.
>>> If you weren't a clueless wonder you would understand that DDD correctly
>>> emulated by HHH including HHH emulating itself emulated DDD has no end
>>> of correct emulation.
> 
>> It does if the simulated HHH aborts, but its simulating copy preempts
>> that. Indeed, it has no choice, but if it didn't abort, the simulation
>> wouldn't abort either. Therefore it can't simulate itself.
>>
> 
> <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
> 
>      H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>      specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
> 
> I spent two years carefully composing the above before I even
> asked professor Sipser to review it.
> 
> DDD is correctly emulated by HHH until HHH sees the same
> never ending pattern that anyone else can see.
> 

Edcept that HHH never sees that pattern, as any pattern that it thinks 
is never-ending makes that pattern halting, based on the actual correct 
emulation of DDD past the point that HHH gives up.

You HHH makes the mistake of not actually doing what it is supposed to 
do. The sorry aspect is you have been shown the method that could be 
used to get the correct answer for this case, but refuse to use it, 
making you answer all the more wrong.