Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott2@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: No one can correctly refute that simulating abort decider A(D,D)
 is correct
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2024 09:49:49 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 159
Message-ID: <uu402f$3ktin$1@dont-email.me>
References: <uu1qje$3106v$1@dont-email.me> <uu1tmp$31mm4$2@dont-email.me>
 <uu1ufg$31r8p$1@dont-email.me> <uu2eob$374vo$2@i2pn2.org>
 <uu2g1k$360p2$2@dont-email.me> <uu2hpe$374vo$11@i2pn2.org>
 <uu2jp1$36okm$2@dont-email.me> <uu2lfu$374vo$15@i2pn2.org>
 <uu2n0q$37bas$4@dont-email.me> <uu2o02$374vn$9@i2pn2.org>
 <uu2och$37bas$8@dont-email.me> <uu3m7n$3ajo2$3@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2024 14:49:52 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="481a4c8f2cd1b5f60f5d8b2395b87ce0";
	logging-data="3831383"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+KGZzjOnhfaJIIdlZwoSwp"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:1NVD00THRJz3uffe1MrPpIZ7h6Q=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <uu3m7n$3ajo2$3@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 7406

On 3/28/2024 7:01 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/27/24 11:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/27/2024 10:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/27/24 11:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/27/2024 9:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 3/27/24 10:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/27/2024 8:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/27/24 9:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2024 7:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/24 4:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2024 2:57 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Op 27.mrt.2024 om 20:04 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 01 void B(ptr x) // ptr is pointer to void function
>>>>>>>>>>>> 02 {
>>>>>>>>>>>> 03   A(x, x);
>>>>>>>>>>>> 04   return;
>>>>>>>>>>>> 05 }
>>>>>>>>>>>> 06
>>>>>>>>>>>> 07 void main()
>>>>>>>>>>>> 08 {
>>>>>>>>>>>> 09   A(B,B);
>>>>>>>>>>>> 10 }
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *Execution Trace*
>>>>>>>>>>>> Line 09: main() invokes A(B,B);
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *keeps repeating* (unless aborted)
>>>>>>>>>>> That is a premature conclusion when A is not specified. 
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *simulating abort decider* A(D,D)
>>>>>>>>>> *simulating abort decider* A(D,D)
>>>>>>>>>> *simulating abort decider* A(D,D)
>>>>>>>>>> *simulating abort decider* A(D,D)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Which just shows your ignorance as that doesn't define what A 
>>>>>>>>> actually is, or needs to do.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You are just demonstrating that you don't know what you are 
>>>>>>>>> talking about.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It holds if A does not halt. If A returns, then B will halt 
>>>>>>>>>>> (unless aborted).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you honestly don't see that no A can possible return to
>>>>>>>>>> any simulated B then you lied about your programming skill.
>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise you can see this and are lying about it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It may not be able to simulate a B to the point of seeing an A 
>>>>>>>>> return to it, 
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *That is the behavior that an abort decider must report on*
>>>>>>>> *That is the behavior that an abort decider must report on*
>>>>>>>> *That is the behavior that an abort decider must report on*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is not possible to CORRECTLY simulate a B to the point of seeing
>>>>>>>> an A return to it because A calls B in recursive simulation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope, it IS possible to simulate any B to the point of seeing A 
>>>>>>> return, 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is impossible for A(B,B) to simulate its input such that any
>>>>>> A ever returns to any B simulated by A because B calls A in recursive
>>>>>> simulation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And if the "Definition" of the answer is based on it "Correctly 
>>>>> Simulating its input", which it can not do, then you have a problem 
>>>>> with your definitions.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Every A(B,B) simulates its input until it sees the same thing
>>>> that you an I have seen for two years.
>>>
>>> Which is an INCORECT condition for aborting, as it matches some 
>>> machines that do not need there simulation to be aborted.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Your problem is you keep on forgetting that at any given time and 
>>>>> example, A is a SPECIFIC program, with SPECIFIC behavior and it 
>>>>> will either simulate and not abort and not answer, or abort and not 
>>>>> show what its input does.
>>>>
>>>> I never forget that.
>>>> I KNOW THAT IRRELEVANT DIFFERENCES ARE IRRELEVANT
>>>> I KNOW THAT IRRELEVANT DIFFERENCES ARE IRRELEVANT
>>>> I KNOW THAT IRRELEVANT DIFFERENCES ARE IRRELEVANT
>>>
>>> But you seem to think that some RELEVERNT differences are IRrelevant, 
>>> showing you are just stupid.
>>>
>>> If it makes a difference to the answer, it is relevent.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We can use ANOTHER simulator (perhaps a different version of A, and 
>>>>> give it THIS B, connect with that original A, and not itself) to 
>>>>> see the right answer.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Every H(D,D) that simulates its input and does not abort
>>>> that simulation is wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Every H(D,D) that simulates its input and does abort
>>>> that simulation is correct about this abort decision.
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>>
>>> Just more of your LIES.
>>>
>>
>> Yet you cannot point out any mistake because you are lying about there
>> being any mistake. Every time you try to explain your reasoning about
>> this it always comes down to this:
>>
>> *Every H(D,D) that needs to abort its input never needed to abort*
>> *its input because some other H somewhere else that did not abort*
>> *its input already aborted its input that it never aborted*
>>
> 
> Nope, the fact that you can't even summarize what I said, just shows it 
> is beyound your ability to comprehend.
> 
> You look at the workd through Olcott glasses, and only see what you want.
> 
> This makes you blind to the truth, and the truth will crush you.
> 
> I have explained why you are wrong already elsewhere, and don't need to 
> repeat it.

Yes you are great at dogmatically saying that I am wrong.
What you are terrible at is showing any mistake because there are
no mistakes.

This is the machine code of D that every H examines.
83c4088945fc837dfc007402ebfe8b45fc8be55dc3
This finite string of bytes never changes.

You keep insisting that necessarily irrelevant differences
between H/D pairs that have nothing to do with the abort
decision make a significant difference in the abort decision.

You already know that these irrelevant differences don't
make any semantic difference in the abort decision because:

*Every H(D,D) that simulates its input and aborts is equivalent*
and
*Every H(D,D) that simulates its input and does not abort is equivalent*

Why lie? (that could count Revelations 21:8 against you).
Is playing trollish head games worth eternity in the lake
which burneth with fire and brimstone?


-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer