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(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ###
Date: Tue, 28 May 2024 10:10:16 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 97
Message-ID: <v34s4p$l6mn$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v18e32$1vbql$1@dont-email.me> <v1vc8j$3jmr$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1vsru$7eqc$1@dont-email.me> <v21r4i$otc2$2@dont-email.me>
 <v22k4b$umr4$1@dont-email.me> <v24oah$1h4u3$1@dont-email.me>
 <v256fc$1kais$1@dont-email.me> <v27d05$25ga0$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2838r$29rd7$1@dont-email.me> <v2a8th$2ps09$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2ahqc$2qvr9$1@dont-email.me> <v2cb5s$39fvg$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2crk0$3cifp$1@dont-email.me> <v2cvuo$3dfkm$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2i921$jvcs$5@dont-email.me> <v2k7fe$12vjm$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2l0q8$17mu1$1@dont-email.me> <v2n4f7$1ms87$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2nfma$1or9h$4@dont-email.me> <v2pkqq$28mg0$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2qhr2$2dpfr$6@dont-email.me> <v2s6kk$2q0pf$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2skde$2s65h$1@dont-email.me> <v2uthd$3bjch$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2vdkp$3dtct$3@dont-email.me> <v2vned$3fl3r$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2vp8f$3g0m3$1@dont-email.me> <v31f7s$3ukf5$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3236b$29pd$1@dont-email.me> <v3249e$28n59$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v325v5$2pkb$4@dont-email.me> <v347fh$hf5j$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 28 May 2024 17:10:18 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="62ab2bf33c274f123184493b42753dfc";
	logging-data="694999"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+IgUYLLsfi7edLHcJ8A66r"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:6cQbofJWYoBhYEQE9KcgtnxCQV0=
In-Reply-To: <v347fh$hf5j$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5857

On 5/28/2024 4:17 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 27.mei.2024 om 16:39 schreef olcott:
>> On 5/27/2024 9:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/27/24 9:52 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/27/2024 3:11 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-05-26 16:50:21 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>> So that: *Usenet Article Lookup*
>>>> http://al.howardknight.net/
>>>> can see the whole message now that
>>>> *the Thai spammer killed Google Groups*
>>>>
>>>> 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       }
>>>>
>>>>>> When we see that D correctly simulated by pure simulator H would 
>>>>>> remain
>>>>>> stuck in recursive simulation then we also know that D never 
>>>>>> reaches its
>>>>>> own line 06 and halts in less than an infinite number of correctly
>>>>>> simulated steps.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which means that H never terminates. You said that by your definition
>>>>> a function that never terminates is not a pure function. Therefore
>>>>> H, if it exists, is not a pure function, and the phrase "pure function
>>>>> H" does not denote.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *I should have said that more clearly*
>>>> *That is why I need reviewers*
>>>> *Here it is more clearly*
>>>>
>>>> When we hypothesize that H is a pure simulator we see that D correctly
>>>> simulated by pure simulator H remains stuck in recursive simulation 
>>>> thus
>>>> never reaches its own simulated final state at its line 06 and 
>>>> halts. In
>>>> this case H does not halt, thus is neither a pure function nor a
>>>> decider.
>>>
>>> But when you hypothesize that H is actually a "pure simulator" 
>>> (presumably one that never aborts) then you are creating a D that 
>>> uses that pure simulator, and are ONLY deriving conclusions for such 
>>> a D.
>>>
>>
>> When D correctly simulated by pure simulator H cannot possibly reach
>> its own simulated final state at line 06 and halt in an infinite number
>> of simulated steps we can conclude that less than an infinite number of
>> steps is also not enough steps for D to halt.
>>
> 
> When H correctly simulated by pure simulator H cannot possibly reach
> its own simulated final state and halt in an infinite number
> of simulated steps we can conclude that less than an infinite number of
> steps is also not enough steps for H to halt.
> 

When D correctly simulated by pure simulator H cannot possibly reach
its own simulated final state at line 06 and halt in an infinite number
of simulated steps we can conclude that less than an infinite number of
steps are also not enough steps for D to halt.

This tells us that when 1 to ∞ steps of D are correctly simulated by
H that D correctly simulated by H never halts under any circumstances
what-so-ever
*CONCLUSIVELY PROVING THAT D CORRECTLY SIMULATED BY H DOES NOT HALT*

Once we have mutual agreement and complete closure on this we can
move on to STEP TWO that analyzes these exact same issues with the
Linz proof. The H/D pairs were needed so that people cannot cheat
on the meaning of correct simulation.

*Dozens of people have consistently insisted on cheating on this*
*Dozens of people have consistently insisted on cheating on this*
*Dozens of people have consistently insisted on cheating on this*


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