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 22:35:36 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v1hcpo$flc1$10@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$4@dont-email.me>
 <v1h8qu$flc1$3@i2pn2.org> <v1h9r2$9doe$3@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 02:35:36 -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
In-Reply-To: <v1h9r2$9doe$3@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 7580
Lines: 162

On 5/8/24 9:45 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/8/2024 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> 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
> 
> Liar Liar pants on fire !!!
> Liar Liar pants on fire !!!
> Liar Liar pants on fire !!!
> 

Describing yourself.

Willing to take the challange?

If you are wrong, you give this up?

Or, don't you beleive yourself?