Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Every D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own
 line 06 and halt
Date: Wed, 22 May 2024 10:26:00 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v2kh7o$1omk3$1@i2pn2.org>
References: <v0k4jc$laej$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>
	<v2e45j$3kf2k$1@dont-email.me> <v2e7up$1g2n9$13@i2pn2.org>
	<v2edto$3pl2i$2@dont-email.me> <v2ef1c$1g2n9$14@i2pn2.org>
	<v2efle$3q0ko$1@dont-email.me> <v2fbtp$1g2n8$10@i2pn2.org>
	<v2g390$3ugq$6@dont-email.me> <v2grhq$1kiah$6@i2pn2.org>
	<v2h0nm$d87m$1@dont-email.me> <v2h1gp$1kiah$14@i2pn2.org>
	<v2harp$ehmg$5@dont-email.me> <v2i2it$1kiag$2@i2pn2.org>
	<v2ian9$ko3b$1@dont-email.me> <v2jiop$1no6v$1@i2pn2.org>
	<v2jju1$vqej$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 22 May 2024 10:26:00 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1858179"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 6376
Lines: 92

Am Tue, 21 May 2024 21:05:51 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 5/21/2024 8:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/21/24 10:22 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/21/2024 7:03 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/21/24 1:18 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/20/2024 9:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/20/24 10:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/20/2024 7:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/20/24 2:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/2024 6:24 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/19/24 11:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/19/2024 10:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/19/24 10:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/19/2024 8:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/19/24 8:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2024 7:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> No, but it is impossible for a pure function H to correctly simulate 
>> this D built on that H by the definition of Computation Theory AND 
>> provide an answer.
> At this point we are only looking at H as a simulator.
> We can have this H return the meaningless 56.
It must return the same value as its input would, or else run indefinitely.

>> "Correct Simulation" to show something about non-termination, must be 
>> per the methods of Computation Theory, which means like a UTM, which 
>> means it does not stop.
> It is essentially trivial to see that D correctly simulated by H
> cannot possibly reach its own final state at line 06 because
> D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation.
This is much more understandable now that you added a reason. However,
if one of those simulations aborts (because it detects infinite recursion),
all of them must (because they are the same), making the abortion wrong.
This is the whole argument.

>> Note also, a "Pure Function" and this algorithm are NOT exactly 
>> equivalent. Pure Function might take a hidden input that makes copies of 
>> the function not equivalent, breaking them form being the requirements 
>> of an algorithm, which is a bit stricter, as it requires that ALL COPIES 
>> return the same answer for the same inputs.
> These H/D pairs only simulate.
No, they also recognise infinite recursion and abort, thus behaving
differently (namely, terminating).

>>>>> The tiniest little divergence from the title of this
>>>>> thread and I totally ignore and erase everything else
>>>>> that you say.
Very constructive.
>>>> And if you can't actually define your category or the thing to be 
>>>> analyzied you are just wasting your time, as if you don't know where 
>>>> you are going, it is hard to find the path.
>>> The way I see it I defined it correctly and completely and you
>>> are simply pretending otherwise. Until you prove otherwise I
>>> will continue to assume this.
If you think we are pretending, why bother?
>> But since you can't clearly state it, it means we can't help you.
> I stated it perfectly and the proof of this is that
> you did not point to any gaps in my spec.

>>> You seem to favor baseless rhetoric because you know that baseless
>>> rhetoric with ad hominem mixed in is very convincing for gullible fools.
>>> Gullible fools are outside of my target audience.
>> Nope, your deception seems to be an attempt to go after gullible fools.
> THE ONLY REASON THAT I WORK ON THIS IS TO MATHEMATICALLY
> FORMALIZE THE NOTION OF TRUTH ITSELF SO THAT THE NAZI
> LIARS CANNOT GET AWAY WITH THEIR LIES.
As if they would care.

>> If you where honest, you could post you whole arguement and let it be 
>> worked on.
> WE ARE ONLY TALKING ABOUT THE SUBJECT LINE OF THIS THREAD.

>>  From your past, the reason you need to break the arguement into pieces 
>> is you need to seperate to logic to allow a change of definition between 
>> the sections.
> IT IS BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE ENOUGH TIME LEFT TO TOLERATE
> ENDLESS DEFECTION
> 
>> For instance, you definition here of correct simulation means your 
>> results can not be used to show non-halting.
> WE CAN GET TO THIS POINT AFTER WE FINISH THE SUBJECT OF THE THREAD
> I DON'T HAVE ENOUGH TIME LEFT TO TOLERATE ENDLESS DEFECTION
How ironic. You would get further if you didn’t impose this roadblock.

>> My guess is in a later section, you will pull out the rule that if a 
>> correct simulation doesn't reach a final state, the input is 
>> non-halting, which is just a LIE because you have changed definition mid 
>> proof.
>> This has been your history.
Quoted for posterity.

-- 
joes