Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!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,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Reply to Ben's long standing objection --- I finally have the
 words
Date: Fri, 17 May 2024 21:07:32 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v28v0k$1a3tk$16@i2pn2.org>
References: <v18e32$1vbql$1@dont-email.me> <v1m5co$lbo4$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v1m71h$1jnpi$1@dont-email.me> <v1m7mh$lbo5$5@i2pn2.org>
 <v1mb8f$1kgpl$1@dont-email.me> <v1mkf8$lbo5$7@i2pn2.org>
 <v1mkmm$1q5ee$1@dont-email.me> <v1na6f$1ugl0$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1o67n$24f4c$1@dont-email.me> <v1q1ie$2l40t$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1q9fp$qb0p$1@i2pn2.org> <v1qmq8$2prs6$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1qouc$2qb2s$1@dont-email.me> <v1vbpd$3gbc$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1vslr$7enr$1@dont-email.me> <v21qdm$op3a$1@dont-email.me>
 <v22j1j$u8vi$3@dont-email.me> <v24nv1$1h2lu$1@dont-email.me>
 <v256bn$1kahe$1@dont-email.me> <v26fdq$18ad7$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v26vrm$19bp2$1@i2pn2.org> <87frugiow7.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <v288md$2ahvh$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 18 May 2024 01:07:32 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1380276"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v288md$2ahvh$4@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 5646
Lines: 97

On 5/17/24 2:46 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/17/2024 7:50 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> joes <noreply@example.com> writes:
>>
>>> Am Thu, 16 May 2024 22:29:14 -0400 schrieb Richard Damon:
>>
>>>> Yep, perhaps some day soon we will be rid of your lies.
>>> That’s low.
>>> Your continuous cries of „liar” aren’t any better than Peter’s spam.
>>
>> When I did engage with him it was to try to pin down what he was really
>> saying and, after years of back-and-forth, he made two unequivocal
>> statement that, to my mind, render all subsequent discussion pointless.
>> First, when asked
>>
>>      "Here's the key question: do you still assert that H(P,P) == 
>> false is
>>      the 'correct' answer even though P(P) halts?"
>>
>> He replied:
>>
>>     "Yes that is the correct answer even though P(P) halts."
> 
> Computable functions are the basic objects of study in computability
> theory. Computable functions are the formalized analogue of the
> intuitive notion of algorithms, in the sense that a function is
> computable if there exists an algorithm that can do the job of the
> function, i.e. *given an input of the function domain it can return the*
> *corresponding output* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function
> 
> typedef int (*ptr)();  // ptr is pointer to int function
> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x)
> 01 int P(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   P(P,P);
> 12 }
> 
> My reviewers have never been aware of the fact computable functions
> are not allowed to report on the behavior of the computation they
> themselves are contained within because deciders cannot take actual
> Turing Machines as inputs.
> 
> This makes the behavior of the executed P(P) moot and instead H must
> report on the behavior that the input to H(P,P) specifies.
> 
> In the above case a simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly emulates
> at least one of the x86 instructions of D in the order specified by the
> x86 instructions of D.
> 
> This may or may not include one or more recursive simulations where H
> correctly simulates itself simulating D in the order specified by the
> x86 instructions of H.
> 
> This conclusively proves that D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly
> reach its own line 06 and halt to everyone with sufficient knowledge
> of the semantics of the C programming knowledge.

Which, since I posted over two weeks ago how to do it in C, means that 
you don't have the needed knowledge of the C programming language, or 
about what truth actually is. THAT is now self-evidently true.

And the fact that you refuse to take up any of my challenges to have me 
repost the link (because you clearly prefer to just lie rather that try 
to do some research) it is clear that you are not actually certain of 
your claim, so you know you may be lying, but you do it anyway.


> 
> *Introduction to the Theory of Computation, by Michael Sipser*
> https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-Michael-Sipser/dp/113318779X/
> 
> On 10/13/2022 11:29:23 AM
> *MIT Professor Michael Sipser agreed these verbatim words are correct*
> (He has neither reviewed nor agreed to anything else in this paper)
> 
>     If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H
>     correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running
>     unless aborted then
> 
>     H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D specifies
>     a non-halting sequence of configurations.
> 


Right, if H does CORRECTLY SIMULATE, or shows that the CORRECT 
SIMULATION would not halt, a correct simulation is one that doesn't abort.

So, since UTM(D,D) Halts (when D still calls H, and not UTM, as required 
by the problem), H can not use that arguement to "correctly" determine 
that its input is not halting