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: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided
Date: Sat, 18 May 2024 19:06:06 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v2bc8u$1ecj9$4@i2pn2.org>
References: <v0k4jc$laej$1@dont-email.me> <v0l11u$ussl$1@dont-email.me>
 <v0lh24$123q3$1@dont-email.me> <v0lic7$2g492$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v0lkas$12q0o$3@dont-email.me> <v0loq2$2g493$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v0lq7d$14579$2@dont-email.me> <v0ls98$2g492$7@i2pn2.org>
 <v0m29q$166o1$1@dont-email.me> <v0m37e$2gl1e$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v0m3v5$16k3h$1@dont-email.me> <v0m55t$2gl1f$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v0m5sn$172p4$1@dont-email.me> <v0m7em$2gl1f$5@i2pn2.org>
 <v0m7tq$17dpv$1@dont-email.me> <v0m8g9$2gl1e$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v0m978$17k7o$3@dont-email.me> <v0mko6$2hf3s$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v0n59h$1h98e$1@dont-email.me> <v0o037$2j1tu$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v0oc65$1q3aq$3@dont-email.me> <v0p9ts$2ki5r$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v0q1rk$2a3u1$1@dont-email.me> <v0qkti$2m1nf$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v0r4a3$2hb7o$6@dont-email.me> <v0rsbr$2m1nf$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v0segm$2v4oq$1@dont-email.me> <v0t8o9$2p3ri$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v0tpjf$3881i$5@dont-email.me> <v0ulma$2qov4$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v2b179$2u8oi$2@dont-email.me> <v2b1g3$1ct7p$17@i2pn2.org>
 <v2bb0g$308qd$1@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 23:06:06 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1520233"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v2bb0g$308qd$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4014
Lines: 56

On 5/18/24 6:44 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/18/2024 3:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/18/24 3:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/1/2024 7:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> The second method uses the fact that you have not restricted what H 
>>>> is allowed to do, and thus H can remember that it is simulating, and 
>>>> if a call to H shows that it is currently doing a simulation, just 
>>>> immediately return 0. 
>>>
>>> Nice try but this has no effect on any D correctly simulated by H.
>>> When the directly executed H aborts its simulation it only returns
>>> to whatever directly executed it.
>>
>> Why? My H does correctly simulate the D it was given.
>>
>> You don't seem to understand how the C code actually works.
>>
>>>
>>> If the directly executed outermost H does not abort then none of
>>> the inner simulated ones abort because they are the exact same code.
>>> When the directly executed outermost H does abort it can only return
>>> to its own caller.
>>
>> WHAT inner simulatioin?
>>
>>
>> My H begins as:
>>
>> int H(ptr x, ptr y) {
>>    static int flag = 0;
>>    if(flag) return 0;
>>    flag = 1;
>>
>> followed by essentially your code for H, except that you need to 
>> disable the hack that doesn't simulate the call to H, but just let it 
>> continue into H where it will immediately return to D and D will then 
>> return.
>>
>>
>> Thus, your claim is shown to be wrong.
>>
> 
> We are talking about every element of an infinite set where
> H correctly simulates 1 to ∞ steps of D thus including 0 to ∞
> recursive simulations of H simulating itself simulating D.
> 
> *At whatever point the directly executed H(D,D) stops simulating*
> *its input it cannot possibly return to any simulated input*

And my H never stops simulating, so that doesn't apply. It will reach 
the final state.

You seem to not understand such simple things.

I guess this is because you are just an ignorant pathological liar that 
doesn't care avout the truth, so your rebuttal s don't need to have 
anythign to do with the statement you are claiming to rebute.