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: Re: No one can correctly refute that simulating abort decider A(D,D)
 is correct
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2024 22:22:18 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <uu58kq$3ca7j$1@i2pn2.org>
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>
 <uu402f$3ktin$1@dont-email.me> <uu50ms$3ca7i$4@i2pn2.org>
 <uu57db$3tt5t$9@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 02:22:20 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3549427"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <uu57db$3tt5t$9@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 20257
Lines: 390

On 3/28/24 10:01 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/28/2024 7:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/28/24 10:49 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> I don't think you understand what "Dogma" is.
>>
>>>
>>> This is the machine code of D that every H examines.
>>> 83c4088945fc837dfc007402ebfe8b45fc8be55dc3
>>> This finite string of bytes never changes.
>>
>> Right, but as you have admitted, the behavior of that machine code 
>> CHANGES depending on what is at the location of H.
>>
> 
> The behavior of D simulated by any H that can possibly exist
> remains the same.

Nope.

The behavior of D CHANGES based on the H it attaches to.

You are just PROVING that you are LYING about H.

> 
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Because the behavior of H isn't irrelevent, and your claim that it is 
>> just shows that you are jusdt an ignorant pathological lying idiot.
>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========