Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Every D correctly simulated by H never reaches its final state
 and halts --- Admitted Liar
Date: Sun, 19 May 2024 14:07:45 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 116
Message-ID: <v2dim1$3gujt$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v26b2t$1rdu0$1@dont-email.me> <v270q1$22vhs$1@dont-email.me>
 <v276pg$2459k$1@dont-email.me> <v27ukn$28r3c$2@dont-email.me>
 <v29tb3$2nna0$1@dont-email.me> <v2aehu$2qsgt$2@dont-email.me>
 <v2ckon$3bc16$1@dont-email.me> <v2crno$3cifp$2@dont-email.me>
 <v2cvlk$3de7m$1@dont-email.me> <v2d0jd$3ddo5$2@dont-email.me>
 <v2dc7k$1g2n9$7@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 19 May 2024 21:07:46 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8b2dd23db76027a1e88bd64b7a96c771";
	logging-data="3701373"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18uJEa3YkplYkG4QDt7vj5z"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:0/yk4nq2IrzvhyXA1H0WzJ/ulEk=
In-Reply-To: <v2dc7k$1g2n9$7@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5593

On 5/19/2024 12:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/19/24 9:59 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/19/2024 8:43 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-05-19 12:36:08 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 5/19/2024 5:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-05-18 14:38:53 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/18/2024 4:45 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-05-17 15:55:03 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/17/2024 4:08 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-17 07:25:52 +0000, Fred. Zwarts said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Op 17.mei.2024 om 03:15 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>> The following is self-evidently true on the basis of the
>>>>>>>>>>> semantics of the C programming language.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> typedef int (*ptr)();  // ptr is pointer to int function
>>>>>>>>>>> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x);
>>>>>>>>>>> 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   return 0;
>>>>>>>>>>> 13 }
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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 include correctly emulating the x86 instructions of H
>>>>>>>>>>> in the order specified by the x86 instructions of H thus calling
>>>>>>>>>>> H(D,D) in recursive simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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 its own line 06 and halt.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *This is a simple software engineering verified fact*
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Note that olcott defines 'verified fact' as 'proven fact', but 
>>>>>>>>>> he is unable to show the proof. So, it must be read as 'my 
>>>>>>>>>> belief'.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A "proven fact" without a proof is not worse than a "verified 
>>>>>>>>> fact"
>>>>>>>>> without a verification.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *I updated my wording*
>>>>>>>> It is self-evidently true to anyone having sufficient knowledge
>>>>>>>> of the semantics of the C programming language.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, it is not. I would know if it were.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you do not understand that a single valid counter-example
>>>>>> would refute my claim then you don't know enough about proofs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your claim
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Most people to not know the difference between deductive proof
>>>> ]and inductive evidence.
>>>
>>> Most people don't read comp.theory so here we needn't care.
>>>
>>
>> If anyone is trying to prove me wrong they
>> must first understand what an actual proof is.
>>
>> Several people here seem to think that ad hominem personal
>> attacks and insults are the basis for a valid rebuttal.
>>
>> Richard has stated that he thinks that an example of
>> {D never simulated by H} ∈ {every D simulated by H}
> 
> No, the H that didn't simulate its input shows that once you allow H to 
> not be required to be correct, that we can then have a trivial function 
> that is "just as correct" (since wrong answers were allowed).
> 

*There you go, admitting that he is exactly the Liar that I claimed*
*There you go, admitting that he is exactly the Liar that I claimed*
*There you go, admitting that he is exactly the Liar that I claimed*


>>
>> On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> Message-ID: <v0ummt$2qov3$2@i2pn2.org>
>> http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3Cv0ummt%242qov3%242%40i2pn2.org%3E
>>
>>>>>>>> It is self-evidently true to anyone having sufficient knowledge
>>>>>>>> of the semantics of the C programming language.
>>>>>
>>>>> is a little unclear about the meaning of "It" but I think it
>>>>> is false for any reasonable interpretation. Can I call myself
>>>>> a counter-example?
>>>
>>>
>>
> 

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer