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: Two dozen people were simply wrong (including Olcott)
Date: Wed, 29 May 2024 19:47:15 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v38eq4$2foi0$1@i2pn2.org>
References: <v3501h$lpnh$1@dont-email.me> <v362eu$2d367$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v363js$vg63$2@dont-email.me> <v36803$2d368$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v368je$100kd$3@dont-email.me> <v373mr$2d367$5@i2pn2.org>
 <v37bpa$15n0b$1@dont-email.me> <v37i9p$lls$1@news.muc.de>
 <87y17smqnq.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <v37sap$18mfo$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 29 May 2024 23:47:16 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2613824"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v37sap$18mfo$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4245
Lines: 82

On 5/29/24 2:31 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/29/2024 1:14 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes:
>>
>>> How about a bit of respect?  Mike specifically asked you not to cite his
>>> name as a back up for your points.  Why do you keep doing it?
>>
>> He does it to try to rope more people in.  It's the same ploy as
>> insulting people by name.  It's hard to ignore being maligned in public
>> by a fool.
>>
> 
> *Thanks for validating my simplified encoding of the Linz*
> 
> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
> 
> I really did believe that Ben Bacarisse was lying when I said it.
> 
> At the time I was talking about the easily verified fact of the actual
> execution trace of fully operational code and everyone was denying the
> easily verified facts.
> 
> 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       }
> 
> It turns out that two dozen people are easily proven wrong when
> they claimed that the correct simulation of the input to H(D,D)
> is the behavior of int main() { D(D); }
> 

How is that?


> When D is correctly simulated by H using an x86 emulator the only
> way that the emulated D can reach its own emulated final state
> at line 06 and halt is
> (a) The x86 machine code of D is emulated incorrectly
> (b) The x86 machine code of D is emulated in the wrong order
> 

Which isn't a "Correct Simulation" by the definition that allow the 
relating of a "Simulation" to the behavior of an input.

So, you are just proving your stupidity.

> *two dozen people were simply wrong*
> 
> It now turns out that Richard Damon was not lying when he referred
> to the words of Peter Linz.
> 
> It did seem ridiculous that the Linz proof merely proved that
> a single machine does not get the correct answer to a specific
> input. Since Linz actually did use the term "single Turing machine"
> I now see that was an honest mistake.
> 
>     The domain of this problem is to be taken as the set of all
>     Turing machines and all w; that is, we are looking for a
>     *single Turing machine* that, given the description of an arbitrary
>     M and w, will predict whether or not the computation of M applied
>     to w will halt
> 

Yep, you do that A LOT, which shows your reckless disregard for the truth.

Now, after proving that a specific (but arbitrarily chosen) H is wrong, 
he is able to use categorical logic to show that NO H can be correct.

Something that seems to be beyond your understand.