Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: My reviewers think that halt deciders must report on the behavior
 of their caller
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2025 07:43:07 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <fdbe3c9ee8085a5f5bd18017e525ac7cf0af4579@i2pn2.org>
References: <101nq32$99vd$1@dont-email.me>
 <a5f81886d091790185fb6434782dba91ad075fa5@i2pn2.org>
 <104hmkm$35gkb$2@dont-email.me>
 <f4f7163b6a6afcf9886f9d72d5b06075c0592338@i2pn2.org>
 <104i0ar$36mma$1@dont-email.me>
 <775a1f21c8d308989a8ef2a0afaae66c1609912b@i2pn2.org>
 <104jc8l$3jrpl$9@dont-email.me>
 <b8e7a597f05663513a7b08172a8f2f66a696e358@i2pn2.org>
 <104jpu7$3np76$1@dont-email.me> <104jsnj$3o6as$1@dont-email.me>
 <104lbkv$13ioh$4@dont-email.me> <104lr65$7l4q$9@dont-email.me>
 <104o6uv$18h8g$3@dont-email.me> <104ojik$tfr1$1@dont-email.me>
 <104qjpq$1c0m7$3@dont-email.me> <104ruq2$1ml84$4@dont-email.me>
 <a15584099e434c75237baca3805e3086078dd6a3@i2pn2.org>
 <104tu8o$264oq$7@dont-email.me>
 <9a58d9ce85d791c6d0e024a41f16d801dec7dff0@i2pn2.org>
 <1050kgd$2qkok$7@dont-email.me>
 <81c886516949b1192a3cca054a255569ee9f76f5@i2pn2.org>
 <105183i$2v547$7@dont-email.me> <1051a80$2vrmp$1@dont-email.me>
 <4febb2df4e21a243c6f08e2e2d8eceb51a1ae0e6@i2pn2.org>
 <1051ruu$36s16$5@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2025 11:48:08 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="580302"; 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: <1051ruu$36s16$5@dont-email.me>

On 7/13/25 11:01 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/13/2025 8:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/13/25 5:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/13/2025 4:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 7/13/2025 3:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 7/13/25 11:48 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/12/2025 6:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/12/25 11:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2025 5:52 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Am Fri, 11 Jul 2025 16:13:38 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/11/2025 3:59 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> As usual claims without evidence. If we do not change the 
>>>>>>>>>>> input (which
>>>>>>>>>>> aborts after a few cycles o simulation), then the simulating 
>>>>>>>>>>> HHH could
>>>>>>>>>>> reach the final halt state without abort.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is a very easily verified fact that the input never aborts 
>>>>>>>>>> anything
>>>>>>>>>> at all.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Only because it is aborted in turn. 
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> HHH(DDD) simulates its input until it sees that
>>>>>>>> DDD cannot possibly stop running unless aborted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then why does the direct execution of DDD halt?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The direct execution is a different sequence of steps
>>>>>> because it is reaping the benefits of HHH having already
>>>>>> aborted its own input.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Its nuts to expect the exact same behavior
>>>> from a different sequence of steps.
>>>>
>>>> HHH1(DDD)==1 and HHH(DDD)==0 are both correct and
>>>> are different because they measure a different
>>>> sequence of steps.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Claude.ai agrees
>>> https://claude.ai/share/da9b8e3f-eb16-42ca-a9e8-913f4b88202c
>>>
>>
>> Because you lied to it.
>>
> 
> That it figured out exactly what the actual non-halting
> pattern behavior was on its own all by itself proves
> that it understands how and why I am correct.

No, it figuered out what pattern you must have meant. Since you implied 
that there WAS such a pattern (when there isn't) you set it up to fail.

This is basically the fallicy of assuming the conclusion, where you 
inject as an assumption, an unproven conjecture, and then use the 
assumption of it being true, to prove that it is true.

That is the Principle of Exlplosion at work.

> 
> That you deny this (with the plausible credentials
> that you cited) seems like an MD that does not know
> what diseases are.
> 

Really? You, who admits that he doesn't use words with their term-of-art 
meaning tries to deflect by saying someone else doesn't know the meaning.

That just show how deceitful your mind is, and how desperate because you 
have run out of plausible excuses.

Sorry, but you are just showing you are just a pitiful liar.