Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!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: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_A_simulating_halt_decider_applied_to_the_The_Peter_?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?Linz_Turing_Machine_description_=E2=9F=A8=C4=A4=E2=9F=A9?=
Date: Mon, 27 May 2024 10:06:16 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 106
Message-ID: <v327h8$3a17$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v2nsvh$1rd65$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> <v2tsub$23vgp$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v2u0o5$33mgp$1@dont-email.me> <v2u2uf$23vgp$4@i2pn2.org>
 <v2u5a0$349br$2@dont-email.me> <v2u6if$23vgo$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v2u7fj$38fjo$1@dont-email.me> <v2v79q$25ell$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v2vg1g$3e8pb$4@dont-email.me> <v2vo5h$26570$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v2vpt6$3g0m3$3@dont-email.me> <v2vqou$26570$5@i2pn2.org>
 <v2vrcl$3gakv$1@dont-email.me> <v2vslp$26570$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v301m6$3hcgb$1@dont-email.me> <v305j9$26571$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v30e5l$3lerc$1@dont-email.me> <v30fbr$26570$9@i2pn2.org>
 <v30hiq$3lv80$1@dont-email.me> <v30jb5$26571$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v30pr8$3r67p$1@dont-email.me> <v30rvv$3riij$1@dont-email.me>
 <v30t8u$26571$6@i2pn2.org> <v30u04$3rour$1@dont-email.me>
 <v30upc$26571$7@i2pn2.org> <v30vp3$3s4od$1@dont-email.me>
 <v321o0$28n58$1@i2pn2.org> <v3255k$2pkb$2@dont-email.me>
 <v326fd$28n59$2@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 27 May 2024 17:06:17 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="458305845cd025bf1a433877c96321fe";
	logging-data="108583"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18cq5+x4RWv4fPNELxflzq7"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:v5S0VHgv2RvCEpvgiwj9oVvjTzY=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v326fd$28n59$2@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 6258

On 5/27/2024 9:48 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/27/24 10:25 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/27/2024 8:27 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/26/24 11:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/26/2024 10:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/26/24 11:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/26/2024 10:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/26/24 10:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/26/2024 9:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>   Ĥ copies its own Turing machine description: ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>   then invokes embedded_H that simulates ⟨Ĥ⟩ with ⟨Ĥ⟩ as input.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is an easily verified fact that ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated by
>>>>>>>>> embedded_H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final state of
>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩ in any finite sequence of steps.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *To other reviewers that are not dishonest*
>>>>>>>> The complete proof of the above statement is that when we 
>>>>>>>> hypothesize
>>>>>>>> that embedded_H is a UTM we can see that:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> i.e. when we assume it is something it isn't, i.e we LIE to 
>>>>>>> ourselves.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you assume embedded_H is something it isn't, 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not at all.
>>>>>> *It looks like you may be utterly clueless about what-if scenarios*
>>>>> You can only ask what-ifs about things that are possible.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What-if embedded_H was a UTM would ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated
>>>>>> by embedded_H reach its own simulated final state of ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩ ?
>>>>>> (a) YES
>>>>>> (b) NO
>>>>>> (c) DISHONEST HONEST ATTEMPT TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT
>>>>>
>>>>> So, If your H was a UTM, and H^ built on that, then embedded_H 
>>>>> would be a UTM and H^ (H^) would be non-halting as would H (H^) (H^).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Great this is a step of progress*
>>>> This conclusively proves that ⟨Ĥ⟩ will not reach ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩ is less than
>>>> an infinite number of steps. A decider is not allowed to simulate
>>>> an infinite number of steps.
>>>
>>> First, it doesn't "Prove" it, 
>>
>> *Sure it does, you just like to deny verified facts*
> 
> Nope, someone saying something doesn't prove it to be true.
> 

Because I am a relatively terrible communicator my words need constant
improvement. *These words here are the clearest ones yet*

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 1 to N of the
    x86 instructions of D in the order specified by the x86 instructions
    of D. This may include M recursive emulations of H emulating itself
    emulating D.

When we see that D correctly simulated by pure simulator H would remain
stuck in infinite recursive simulation then we also know that less than
an infinite number of steps is not enough steps for D correctly
simulated by pure function H to reach its own simulated final state at
line 06 and halt.

I must continue to improve the clarity of words to the point
that *INTENTIONAL MISINTERPRETATION* looks utterly ridiculous.

*The dishonest dodge strawman deception CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT*
*fake rebuttal already looks utterly ridiculous*

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