Path: ...!news.misty.com!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: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach
 its, own line 06
Date: Sat, 25 May 2024 15:23:26 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v2tdre$22aq1$7@i2pn2.org>
References: <v2nsvh$1rd65$2@dont-email.me> <v2pg3r$27s2r$2@dont-email.me>
 <v2qhlc$2dpfr$5@dont-email.me> <v2qihn$1vblq$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v2qrnf$2fesr$3@dont-email.me> <v2qvar$1vblp$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v2r1dn$2ge4f$4@dont-email.me> <v2r3r0$2h2l7$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2r7cq$1vblq$10@i2pn2.org> <v2rpda$2nvot$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2smub$22aq1$1@i2pn2.org> <v2t8o0$2vna0$3@dont-email.me>
 <v2t9tj$22aq1$5@i2pn2.org> <v2tajd$2vna0$6@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 25 May 2024 19:23:26 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2173761"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v2tajd$2vna0$6@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5141
Lines: 100

On 5/25/24 2:27 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/25/2024 1:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/25/24 1:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/25/2024 7:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/25/24 12:28 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> That you H, by just needing to be a "Pure Funtion" is not 
>>>>>> necessarily the computatinal eqivalent of a Turing Machine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Totally moot for the subject line.
>>>>
>>>> Nope, ESSENTINTIAL. I am not asking you to change your definition, 
>>>> just accept its consequences.
>>>>
>>>
>>> typedef int (*ptr)();  // ptr is pointer to int function in C
>>> 00       int H(ptr p, ptr i);
>>> 01       int D(ptr p)
>>> 02       {
>>> 03         int Halt_Status = H(p, p);
>>> 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       }
>>>
>>> The above template refers to an infinite set of H/D pairs where D is
>>> correctly simulated by pure function H. This was done because many
>>> reviewers used the shell game ploy to endlessly switch which H/D pair
>>> was being referred to.
>>>
>>> *Correct Simulation Defined*
>>>     This is provided because many reviewers had a different notion of
>>>     correct simulation that diverges from this notion.
>>>
>>>     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.
>>>
>>> *Execution Trace*
>>> Line 11: main() invokes H(D,D); H(D,D) simulates lines 01, 02, and 03 of
>>> D. This invokes H(D,D) again to repeat the process in endless recursive
>>> simulation.
>>>
>>> *This is only talking about the H/D c function pairs*
>>> *This is only talking about the H/D c function pairs*
>>> *This is only talking about the H/D c function pairs*
>>> *This is only talking about the H/D c function pairs*
>>> *This is only talking about the H/D c function pairs*
>>>
>>> *This is only talking about the H/D c function pairs*
>>> *This is only talking about the H/D c function pairs*
>>> *This is only talking about the H/D c function pairs*
>>> *This is only talking about the H/D c function pairs*
>>> *This is only talking about the H/D c function pairs*
>>>
>>
>>
>> So, what is the answer to my questions?
>>
> 
> As soon as you first hit the strawman deception change-the-subject
> fake rebuttal I pint this pout and erase everything else that you say.
> 
> *Thread renamed to be 100% precisely accurate*
> Any divergence from the subject of the thread gets boilerplate reply.
> 

In other words, you refuse to accept the meaning of your words, 
admitting that you plan to change them.

Fine, wait for your death then.

By not engaging, you are admitting:

1) That your H is NOT a computation equivalent for a Turing machine.

2) That you simulations do NOT say anything about the actual behavior of 
the machine given on the input, especially about its halting status.

3) That you "infinite set of H/D pairs" does NOT correspond to the 
concept of the behavior of a machine, and

4) That you D and H are NOT eqivalents of the corresponding things in 
the Linz or Sipser proofs.

5) You are not interested in Honest Dialog, but are hoping someone will 
agree to baddly defined terms so you can claim support for your lies.