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 21:27:58 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v1h8qu$flc1$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> <v1etil$3o9rj$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1fo8o$dt8i$4@i2pn2.org> <v1gk7h$4imh$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 9 May 2024 01:27:58 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="513409"; 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: <v1gk7h$4imh$4@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 7215
Lines: 155

On 5/8/24 3:36 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/8/2024 6:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/8/24 12:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/7/2024 10:29 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
>>>
>>> The one great thing that Mike did was confirm that HH can look
>>> into all of the details of the internal state of its simulated
>>> DD machine and still be a computable function. I suspected
>>> that I might be, yet Mike confirmed that I am correct about this.
>>>
>>> That does not work in reverse though. A computable function is
>>> is not allowed to look at its caller.
>>>
>>
>> Right, and thus D can change itself to call the H deciding it, and 
>> thus needs to be defined to call just one H.
>>
>> Also, the question for H isn't the behavior of its caller, but the 
>> behavior of the machine described by its input.
>>
>> There is nothing in that definition that EXCLUDES that machine calling 
>> H (though, due to the structure of Turing Machines, that needs to be 
>> another copy of that machine, as the Linz proof does).
>>
>> Your problem is you don't seem to understand the basic English words 
>> of the problem, maybe because you logic is based on lying and thus 
>> needs to avoid being to tied to actual definitions.
> 
> *The above is all weasel words that ignore the point*
> *The above is all weasel words that ignore the point*
> *The above is all weasel words that ignore the point*

Nope, just proves my point.

> 
> Am am only paying attention to your reply to this post @@@
> I am not going to sift through all of your weasel words

Then I will just continue to point out that you are just ignoring that 
your claim have be


> 
> 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 }
> 
> Any H/D pair matching the above template where D(D) is simulated
> by the same H(D,D) that it calls cannot possibly reach past its own
> line 03. Simple software engineering verified fact.
> 

Proven wrong, and not refuted, so just shows that you are

> We also must mutually agree that whenever any executed H(D,D)
> stops simulating its input that no H ever returns any value to any
> simulated D.
> 

But that is INCORRECT and has been proven wrong.

THus, you are just proven to be a oathetic ignorant hypocritical 
patholgocial lying idiot who has been proven to be DEAD WRONG.