Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: =?UTF-8?B?UmU6IFZlcmlmaWVkIGZhY3QgdGhhdCDEpC5IIOKfqMSk4p+pIOKfqMSk?=
 =?UTF-8?B?4p+pIGFuZCBIIOKfqMSk4p+pIOKfqMSk4p+pIGhhdmUgZGlmZmVyZW50IGJlaGF2?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?ior_--RASP_Machines--?=
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2024 19:19:21 -0700
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <uslpn9$1enef$18@i2pn2.org>
References: <usia2e$2f2pd$1@dont-email.me> <usikk8$2gnhr$8@dont-email.me>
 <usiljd$2hc10$3@dont-email.me> <usineq$2hnpb$3@dont-email.me>
 <usiq9n$2ijsm$1@dont-email.me> <usir82$2inqh$2@dont-email.me>
 <usit21$2j3c8$1@dont-email.me> <usiufa$2j99n$1@dont-email.me>
 <usiukh$2jaj3$1@dont-email.me> <usiuup$2jdc7$2@dont-email.me>
 <usj254$2jutc$2@dont-email.me> <usj2e3$2jut2$1@dont-email.me>
 <usj2je$2jutc$3@dont-email.me> <usj2rs$2jut2$2@dont-email.me>
 <usj32s$2k5id$1@dont-email.me> <usjd20$2plge$1@dont-email.me>
 <usjef5$1cf5q$6@i2pn2.org> <usjfj8$2q613$1@dont-email.me>
 <usjgs6$1cf5q$7@i2pn2.org> <usjhks$2qhfq$1@dont-email.me>
 <usjj7v$1cf5q$8@i2pn2.org> <uskg1p$30hr1$1@dont-email.me>
 <KEkHN.386271$vFZa.185803@fx13.iad> <uskog1$32h3c$1@dont-email.me>
 <uskpe3$32l00$1@dont-email.me> <uskq04$32h3c$3@dont-email.me>
 <usksvk$33a1p$5@dont-email.me> <uskubp$33lov$3@dont-email.me>
 <usl0u7$34bnj$1@dont-email.me> <usljen$385ff$1@dont-email.me>
 <uslk9j$385q4$5@dont-email.me> <usllu9$38jtu$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 02:19:22 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1531343"; 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: <usllu9$38jtu$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5148
Lines: 76

On 3/10/24 6:14 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/10/2024 7:46 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 11/03/24 01:32, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/10/2024 2:16 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I noticed that you gave up on Olcott machines and now you are back 
>>>> to your old bullshit ways of pretending that the same machine can 
>>>> produce two different execution traces on the same input. Why don't 
>>>> you show us an execution trace where that happens? Both traces must 
>>>> show the first instruction that is different in both traces and I 
>>>> recommend showing 20 more instructions after that, but you can abort 
>>>> one after that time, if it doesn't halt, to prevent the trace 
>>>> getting infinitely long.
>>>
>>> Turing Machines and Olcott machines cannot properly implement
>>> H1(D,D) and H(D,D) that know their own machine address.
>>
>> "Know their own machine address" isn't an objective specification and 
>> it has nothing to do with the halting problem anyway. Turing machines 
>> don't have machine addresses and Olcott machines don't have machine 
>> addresses either.
>>
>>> My C code proves these two have different behavior:
>>> (a) H1(D,D) + H1_machine_address
>>> (b) H(D,D) + H_machine_address
>>
>> Of course.
>>
>>> Because they are different computations they are
>>> not required to have the same behavior.
>>
>> Of course. One of them even answers the halting problem correctly in 
>> this case. But that's because this case isn't the Linz counterexample 
>> for H1. If you built the Linz counterexample for H1, which is D1, 
>> you'd find that H1 gets it wrong, so H1 doesn't solve the halting 
>> problem.
> 
> I am taking H1(D,D) to be Linz H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and H(D,D) to be Linz H ⟨Ĥ⟩.
> Since we are using machine addresses there is no need for copies.
> This simplifies Linz Ĥ down to this.

Then you are just LYING about following Linz.

Linz H^ needs to use the EXACT computation that it is to foil, and call 
it in a way that it give exactly the same answer.

Anything else is just a LIE.

> 
> Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
> Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn   // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
> 
> H/D does contradict itself like simplified Linz Ĥ and
> H1(D,D) does not contradict itself like Linz H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.

H^ / D contradicts the H that it was trageted to defeat.

That any other decider get it right is irreleent.

> 
>>> They cannot be implemented as Turing Machines or Olcott
>>> Machines. They can be implemented as RASP machines proven
>>> by the fact that they are implemented as C functions.
>>
>> They can be implemented as Turing machines. Each one is different from 
>> the other. They are not the same.
>>
> 
> Turing machines and Olcott machines cannot know their own machine
> address in a way that cannot be circumvented. X86 virtual machines
> and thus (possibly augmented) RASP machines can.
> 

Right, that is how you are CHEATING.

YOu are just now being more blantant about it, which make it easier to 
point that you are just lying.