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: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach
 its, own line 06
Date: Sat, 25 May 2024 19:40:59 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v2tsub$23vgp$2@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>
 <v2tdre$22aq1$7@i2pn2.org> <v2tfms$30u1r$3@dont-email.me>
 <v2tgv2$22aq0$2@i2pn2.org> <v2th6a$319s1$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2tjpr$22aq1$9@i2pn2.org> <v2tk9i$31qgp$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2tkit$22aq0$6@i2pn2.org> <v2tl8b$31uo4$2@dont-email.me>
 <v2tm5d$22aq0$7@i2pn2.org> <v2tnr1$32e7p$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2tp5n$22aq0$9@i2pn2.org> <v2tpdg$32me8$2@dont-email.me>
 <v2tptp$22aq1$13@i2pn2.org> <v2tq50$32r0d$2@dont-email.me>
 <v2tqh7$22aq1$15@i2pn2.org> <v2tr68$32uto$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2trch$23vgp$1@i2pn2.org> <v2trts$331vq$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 25 May 2024 23:40:59 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2227737"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v2trts$331vq$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6598
Lines: 127

On 5/25/24 7:23 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/25/2024 6:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/25/24 7:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/25/2024 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/25/24 6:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> *We can get to that ONLY WHEN WE HAVE THE ABOVE SUBJECT AS A BASIS*
>>>>> *We can get to that ONLY WHEN WE HAVE THE ABOVE SUBJECT AS A BASIS*
>>>>> *We can get to that ONLY WHEN WE HAVE THE ABOVE SUBJECT AS A BASIS*
>>>>
>>>> No we need to handle them to know what you have defined.
>>>>
>>>> After all, if we don't agree on the inmplications, we don't have 
>>>> agreement on what is being stipuated as the defintions.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Thus trolling me is made impotent*
>>>>> *Thus trolling me is made impotent*
>>>>> *Thus trolling me is made impotent*
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They are not "Baseless" but based on the actual definitions of the 
>>>> terms that you are changing.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *In other words you can show in a convincing way that this is false*
>>> *In other words you can show in a convincing way that this is false*
>>> *In other words you can show in a convincing way that this is false*
>>
>> Didn't say that, which shows you to be a liar, or at least being 
>> deceptive, which is why we need to handle the implications first
>>
>> (Note, you are just proving that you don't understand how logic works)
>>
>>
>> The implications of your specifications are:
>>
>> 1) That your H is NOT a computation equivalent for a Turing machine.
>>
> 
> OFF TOPIC UNTIL AFTER WE HAVE THE BASIS OF THE SUBJECT LINE OF THIS POST

Nope, necessary condition to talk, about the subject line.

After all, if you MEAN by your stipulataion that you actually do intend 
for H to be a computational equivalent for a Turing Machine, then there 
are so unstated, but implied requirments on H that will need to be met.

Like we can make a copy of H and all copies will give the same answer 
for same input.

You then need to show that you can actually make such a 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.
>>
> 
> OFF TOPIC UNTIL AFTER WE HAVE THE BASIS OF THE SUBJECT LINE OF THIS POST

Nope, necessary condition to talk, about the subject line.

After all, if you intend that your definition entails demonstrating the 
acutual behavior of the input, then your correct simulaition definition 
includes the additional property that if the instruction wasn't a 
terminal instruction of the program, that the next instruction MUST be 
simulated too.

> 
>> 3) That you "infinite set of H/D pairs" does NOT correspond to the 
>> concept of the behavior of a machine, and
>>
> 
> OFF TOPIC UNTIL AFTER WE HAVE THE BASIS OF THE SUBJECT LINE OF THIS POST

Nope, necessary condition to talk, about the subject line

> 
>> 4) That you D and H are NOT eqivalents of the corresponding things in 
>> the Linz or Sipser proofs.
>>
> 
> OFF TOPIC UNTIL AFTER WE HAVE THE BASIS OF THE SUBJECT LINE OF THIS POST

Nope, necessary condition to talk, about the subject line

> 
> *I ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY MORE DISHONEST DODGE*
> *STRAW-MAN DECEPTION CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT FAKE REBUTTALS*
> 

And I will not tolerate any more of your lies, so we need to nail down 
the meaning of your definitions BEFORE we use them.

You have been PROVEN to be a liar, and a pathological liar with a 
reckless disregard for the truth, so we need to have argement before, 
because your history is that you will just claim the falsehoods after if 
you get what you want.

>> 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.
> 
> *I ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY MORE DISHONEST DODGE*
> *STRAW-MAN DECEPTION CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT FAKE REBUTTALS*
> 
> *I ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY MORE DISHONEST DODGE*
> *STRAW-MAN DECEPTION CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT FAKE REBUTTALS*
> 
> *I ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY MORE DISHONEST DODGE*
> *STRAW-MAN DECEPTION CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT FAKE REBUTTALS*
> 
> *I ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY MORE DISHONEST DODGE*
> *STRAW-MAN DECEPTION CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT FAKE REBUTTALS*
> 
> *I ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY MORE DISHONEST DODGE*
> *STRAW-MAN DECEPTION CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT FAKE REBUTTALS*
> 
> 

Nope, necessary condition to talk, about the subject line


Note, It doesn't matter to me if we get stuck here, it just shows that 
you don't have anything to go on.

YOU on the other hand, are on a short clock and want to get things resolved.

The ball is in your court