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,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@
Date: Wed, 8 May 2024 07:39:02 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v1fo8m$dt8i$3@i2pn2.org>
References: <v18e32$1vbql$1@dont-email.me> <v1avuv$2lks2$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1b7gl$2ndka$1@dont-email.me> <v1c2ng$9f73$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v1c43h$3168a$1@dont-email.me> <v1c6g2$9f72$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v1c7ph$31thl$2@dont-email.me> <v1c8ne$9f72$7@i2pn2.org>
 <v1c8s6$3242s$1@dont-email.me> <v1c9gn$9f73$5@i2pn2.org>
 <v1c9m6$325ls$1@dont-email.me> <v1d2kp$9f72$10@i2pn2.org>
 <v1doi3$3cndh$1@dont-email.me> <v1eaov$ca07$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v1edj0$3he4j$1@dont-email.me> <v1eo28$cp5r$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v1eokj$3nb4c$2@dont-email.me> <v1epbn$cp5s$7@i2pn2.org>
 <v1erj8$3o05s$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 8 May 2024 11:39:02 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="455954"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v1erj8$3o05s$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4717
Lines: 91

On 5/7/24 11:29 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/7/2024 9:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/7/24 10:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/7/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/7/24 7:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/7/2024 5:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/7/24 1:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Once someone has definitely proven to not be telling the truth
>>>>>>> about any specific point it is correct to assume any other
>>>>>>> assertions about this same point are also false until evidence
>>>>>>> arises to the contrary.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then I guess we can just go and ignore everything you have said.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PERIOD.
>>>>>
>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point*
>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point*
>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point*
>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point*
>>>>>
>>>>> Message-ID: <v0ummt$2qov3$2@i2pn2.org>
>>>>> *When you interpret*
>>>>> On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>  > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> *Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
>>>>> *stop running unless aborted by H*
>>>>>
>>>>> as *D NEVER simulated by H*
>>>>>
>>>>> you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth
>>>>> that would win a defamation case.
>>>>
>>>> Nope, It is clear you don't understand the logic of qualifiers.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *Prove it on this point*
>>> Exactly how can ALWAYS: ∀x be construed as NEVER: ∄x
>>
>> if there are no x.
>>
> 
> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x)  // ptr is pointer to int function
> 01 int D(ptr x)
> 02 {
> 03   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
> 04   if (Halt_Status)
> 05     HERE: goto HERE;
> 06   return Halt_Status;
> 07 }
> 08
> 09 int main()
> 10 {
> 11   H(D,D);
> 12 }
> 
> The above template defines an infinite set of finite string H/D pairs 
> where each D(D) that is simulated by H(D,D) also calls this same H(D,D).
> 
> I have one concrete fully operational instance of H/D pairs so
> we know that more than zero of them exist.
> 
> I can adapt this one concrete instance to be the 7 shown below and
> we can extrapolate the trend from there:
> 
> 1st element of H/D pairs 1 step of D is simulated by H
> 2nd element of H/D pairs 2 steps of D are simulated by H
> 3rd element of H/D pairs 3 steps of D are simulated by H
> 
> 4th element of H/D pairs 4 steps of D are simulated by H
> this begins the first recursive simulation at line 01
> 
> 5th element of H/D pairs 5 steps of D are simulated by
> next step of the first recursive simulation at line 02
> 
> 6th element of H/D pairs 6 steps of D are simulated by
> last step of the first recursive simulation at line 03
> 
> 7th element of H/D pairs 7 steps of D are simulated by H
> this begins the second recursive simulation at line 01
> 
> 
> But some is not all.

Thus, you demonstrate that you do not know how logic works, but think 
that proof by example is a valid proof method for universal qualifiers.

The fact that I have shown how to build an H that does what you say no H 
can do shows your "proof" is wrong, and thus your basic logic is incorrect.

PROVEN.